UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT  LOS  ANGELES 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.arcliive.org/details/connecticutascorOOmeadiala 


CONNECTICUT 


CORPORATE    COLON! 


J 


NELSON   PRENTISS   MEAD 


D18SEKTATJO.\ 

Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfilmemt  of  the  Requirements  foe 

THE  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  the  Facft.ty 

OF  Political  Science  in  Columbia  ITxiveu?htv 


Fafsa  OF 

Tot  New  E«a  Pnianis  COMPAUt 

LADCAatER,  fK 


19(m; 


8i 


CONNECTICUT 


AS  A 


CORPORATE    COLONY 


NELSON   PRENTISS   MEAD 


DISSERTATION 

Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the  Requirements  for 

THE  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  the  Faculty 

OF  Political  Science  in  Columbia  University 


Pi(»  or 

Til  Rt«  En*  PmiiTiiis  CONPAIX 

LAHCASTIt,  PK 

1906 


kJ 


"> 


CONTENTS. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Continuity  of  the  history  of  Connecticut 1 

English  colonization  the  result  of  private  initiative 2 

The  proprietary  and  corporate  types  of  colonial  agencies.  . .  2 

The  royal  type  a  later  development 3 

Characteristics   of   the   proprietary   and   royal   types;    the 

democratic  and  prerogative  elements 3 

Characteristics  of  the  corporate  type ;  purely  democratic . .  4 

Grouping  of  colonial  types 5 

The  three  corporate  colonies ;  their  essential  identity  in  form  5 
The  founders  of  Connecticut  created  a  de-facto  corporate 

colony  by  conscious  imitation  of  Massachusetts 6 

The  royal  charter  confirmed  an  existing  government 6 

Plan  of  work ;  first  to  consider  Connecticut  as  a  type  of  the 

corporate  colony,  and  second  to  consider  Connecticut  in 

its  relations  to  the  home  government 6 

CHAPTER    I. 

ORGANS  OF  LEGISLATION  AND  ADMINISTRATION. 

The  General  Court 7 

Organization 7 

The  Massachusetts  commission 7 

The  "Corte"  before  1639 7 

The  Court  as  organized  by  the  Fundamental  Orders  8 

Special  manner  of  organization 9 

Changes  made  by  the  charter 11 

Separation  of  the  two  houses. 12 

Meetings    alternate    between    Hartford    and    New 

Haven 13 

Powers 13 

Powers  of  the  Massachusetts  commission 13 

Powers  of  the  General  Court  'before  1639 14 

Erroneous  idea  of  the  indepenavjnce  of  the  towns. .  14 

Powers  granted  by  the  Fundamental  Orders 14 

iii 

(.  r     ,    '■■.■:  ^   ■"    ■ 


IV  CONTENTS. 

The  broad  extent  of  these  powers 15 

The  General   Court  the   "supreme  power  of  the 

Commonwealth" 15 

No  Bill  of  Rights 15 

Varied  character  of  legislation 16 

Much  special  legislation 16 

Powers  of  the  General  Court  in  administration ...  16 
The  General  Court  retains  control  of  nearly  all 

branches  of  administration 17 

Quarrel  between  the  two  houses  over  the  power  of 

appointment   18 

The  royal  charter  made  no  material  change  in  the 

powers  of  the  General  Court 20 

The  charter  not  fundamental 20 

Powers  of  the  General  Court  not  changed  during 

the  eighteenth  century 21 

Governor  21 

No  distinct  executive  authority  before  1639 21 

Office  of  governor  provided  in  the  Fundamental 

Orders    21 

Qualifications    22 

Powers   22 

Summoned  the  General  Court,  but  could  not 

adjourn  or  dissolve  it 22 

Presided   over   the  meetings   of   the   General 

Court   22 

Had  no  veto  power 22 

Had  few  administrative  powers 23 

Powers  as  provided  by  the  charter 23 

The  governor's  message 23 

The  governor's   influence  in   the  government 

depended  upon  his  personality 24 

Council    24 

The  ''particular  court" 24 

The  council  first  provided  by  the  charter 24 

Frequent  restatement  of  the  council 25 

Fear  of  a  "standing"  council 26 

Powers  of  the  council 26 

Control  of  the  council  by  the  General  Court 27 


CONTENTS.  V 

Absence  of  council  records  during  the  eighteenth 

century 27 

CHAPTER    11. 

FINANCE    AND    CURRENCY. 

Scope  of  the  chapter 28 

Sources  of  revenue 28 

Direct  taxes 29 

Land  tax 29 

Land  assessed  according  to  probable  revenue 29 

Classification  of  land 29 

General  property  tax 29 

Poll  tax 30 

Income  or  faculty  tax 30 

Crude  manner  of  levying  the  income  tax 31 

Exemptions  from  taxation 31 

Indirect  taxes 32 

Excises  32 

Customs  duties 32 

A  primitive  protective  tariff 33 

Tonnage   duties 34 

Collection  of  revenue 35 

The  treasurer 35 

The  constable  35 

Early  manner  of  levying  taxes 35 

Inequalities  of  the  system 35 

The  Grand  List 36 

' '  Fourfold ' '  assessments 36 

The  listers  and  inspectors  of  lists 36 

Excise  and  customs  officers 37 

Expenses  37 

Provisions  for  defence 37 

Salaries  and  pensions  of  soldiers 38 

Military  supplies 38 

Forts  and  fortifications 38 

Coast  defence  vessels 39 

Large    military    expenses    due    to    the    inter- 
colonial wars 39 


VI  CONTENTS. 

Salaries  of  officials 39 

Small  and  irregular 39 

Fear  of  stated  salaries 40 

Fees  more  important  than  salaries 40 

Extra  compensation  and  pensions 41 

Expenses  of  colonial  agents 41 

Provisions  for  education 41 

Provisions  for  the  protection  of  the  natives 42 

Appropriations   42 

Special  appropriations  for  each  expense 42 

Controlled  by  the  General  Court 42 

Auditing  committees 42 

Currency  42 

Lack  of  a  medium  of  exchange 42 

Use  of  wampum 42 

Use  of  commodities 43 

Foreign  coins 44 

Pine  tree  currency 44 

Variety  of  currencies  in  use 44 

Act  of  Parliament  regulating  foreign  coins 45 

' '  Proclamation ' '  money   46 

Paper  currency    46 

First  appearance  in  New  England 46 

First  appearance  in  Connecticut 46 

Frequent  emissions  48 

Efforts  to  encourage  the  circulation  of  the  bills.  ...  48 

Counterfeiting  and  mutilation  of  the  bills 49 

Made  legal  tender 50 

— The  New  London  Society  emits  bills  of  credit 51 

Action  of  the  colonial  authorities  in  regard  to  them  51 

— A  Connecticut  land  bank 52 

"New  Tenor"  bills 53 

Great  depreciation  of  bills 55 

Sinking  of  the  paper  currency 56 

Issuance  of  interest-bearing  notes 57 

A  further  resort  to  fiat  currency 58 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

CHAPTER   III. 

LAND    SYSTEM. 

Title  to  land 59 

Title  based   upon   possession   and   purchase  from  the 

natives  59 

Restriction  of  the  right  to  purchase  from  the  Indians. .  59 

Title  confirmed  by  the  royal  charter 60 

Colonial  grants 61 

The  power  to  grant  lands  before  1639 61 

The  power  granted  to  the  General  Court  by  the  Funda- 
mental Orders   61 

Two  kinds  of  grants  (a)  to  individuals,  (&)  to  groups 

of  individuals 61 

Individual  grants  more  common  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury      61 

Grants  to  groups  of  individuals  more  important 61 

Purpose  of  such  grants 61 

Activity  of  the  General  Court  in  settling  new  towns.  . .  62 
The  relation  of  the  General  Court  to  the  administration 
of  the  public  domain  the  same  as  in  the  other  cor- 
porate colonies  62 

Town  and  proprietary  grants 63 

Variety  of  treatment  in  the  different  towns 63 

In  the  older  towns  the  land  was  regulated  in  the  town 

meeting    64 

Distinction  between  proprietors  and  other  inhabitants 

toward  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century 65 

Contests  between  the  commoners  and  non-commoners  in 

the  different  towns 66 

Attitude  of  the  General  Court 66 

Consideration  of  the  New  London  petitions 67 

Victory  for  the  proprietors 68 

Organization  of  the  proprietors 68 

— 'Administration  of  land  in  the  towns  of  the  eighteenth 

century 69 

-  Division  and  sale  of  the  ' '  Western  Lands  " 70 

Appearance  of  land  speculators  and  absentee  proprietors  72 

Division  of  land 74 

Character  of  land 74 


VIU  CONTENTS. 

Laying  out  of  the  town  plot  and  the  assignment  of 

home  lots 75 

Basis  of  division  in  the  older  towns 75 

Individual  grants 76 

Common  fields,  fences  and  herds 77 

Town  commons 77 

Restrictions  upon  alienation  of  land 78 

Basis  of  division  of  land  in  the  later  towns 79 

Common  fields  and  herds  less  frequent  in  the  later 

towns    79 

CHAPTER    IV. 

MILITARY    AFFAIRS. 

Administration  of  the  militia 80 

Powers  of  the  Massachusetts  Commission 80 

Powers  of  the  Court  before  1639 80 

Powers  conferred  on  the  General  Court  by  the  Funda- 
mental Orders 80 

Provisions  in  the  charter 80 

Councils  of  war 81 

Council  controlled  by  the  General  Court 82 

Contest  over  the  control  of  the  militia 82 

Militia  placed  under  the  command  of  the  governor  of 

New  York  83 

Visit  of  Fletcher  to  Hartford 83 

Colony  retains  control  of  its  militia 84 

Organization  of  the  militia 85 

Militia  system  based  upon  the  assize  of  arms 85 

Trained  bands 86 

Troopers    87 

Oificers  88 

Duties  of  the  clerk 88 

Regimenting  of  the  militia 88 

Trainings  90 

Forts  and  fortifications 91 

Forts  at  Saybrook  and  New  London 91 

Unsubstantial  character  of  the  fortifications 91 

Fortified  houses  93 


CONTENTS.  IX 

Colonial  "navy" 94 

The  sloop  Defence 94 

The  brigantine  Tartar 94 

Indian  wars  of  the  seventeenth  century 94 

The  Pequot  war 94 

Murder  of  Captain  Stone 95 

Murder  of  John  Oldham 95 

Expedition  of  John  Endicott 95 

The  force  under  Major  Mason 96 

Capture  of  the  Pequot  "fort" 97 

Dispersal  of  the  Pequots 97 

Significance  of  the  struggle 98 

Trouble  with  the  River  Indians  and  the  Narragansett 

tribes    99 

Capture  and  death  of  Miantinomo 99 

Philip's  war 101 

Comparison  with  the  earlier  struggles 101 

Outbreak  of  the  war 101 

Local  struggle  around  Mount  Hope  peninsula 102 

Escape  of  Philip  to  central  Massachusetts 102 

Defence  of  the  upper  river  towns  by  Connecticut.  .  102 
Friction  between  the  Connecticut  and  Massachu- 
setts troops  102 

Expedition  into  the  Narragansett  country  in  the 

winter  of  1675 103 

Second  expedition  into  the  Narragansett  country.  .  104 

Close  of  the  struggle  and  its  significance 104 

Intercolonial  wars 103 

Comparison    between   the   intercolonial   wars   and    the 

earlier  Indian  wars 105 

Favorable  geographical  situation  of  Connecticut 106 

First  Intercolonial  war 106 

Connecticut  troops  sent  to  New  York  and  Albany.  .  106 

Campaign  of  1690  against  Canada 107 

Its  failure  107 

Trouble  between  Leisler  and  Fitz  John  Winthrop . .  107 

Expenses  of  Connecticut  in  the  war. 108 

Second  intercolonial  war 108 


CONTENTS. 

Friction  between  the  Connecticut  authorities  and 

the  governors  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts.  .  108 

Unsuccessful  expedition  against  Canada  in  1709 .  .  109 

Capture  of  Port  Royal  1710 110 

Disastrous  expedition  of  1711 110 

Close  of  the  war 110 

War  with  the  eastern  Indians Ill 

Aid  sent  by  Connecticut Ill 

Third  intercolonial  war Ill 

The  abortive  expedition  to  the  Spanish  main Ill 

Capture  of  Louisburg 112 

Close  of  the  struggle 113 

Fourth  intercolonial  war 113 

Appointment   of  commanders-in-chief  of  the   col- 
onial forces 113 

Expedition  against  Crown  Point 114 

Incapacity  of  Loudoun  and  Abercrombie 115 

Campaign  of  1759  and  the  fall  of  Quebec 116 

Completion  of  the  conquest  of  Canada 116 

Troops  furnished  for  garrison  purposes 116 

Connecticut  troops  in  Pontiac's  war 117 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  central  fact  in  the  constitutional  development  of 
Connecticut  is  its  continuity.  Any  division  of  its  colonial 
history  into  periods  must  be  largely  arbitrary.  From  the 
founding  of  the  colony  until  its  separation  from  the 
mother  country,  a  period  of  nearly  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  the  institutional  development  of  the  colony 
was  a  steady  and  natural  growth.  True,  there  was  the 
Andros  regime,  but  this  was  merely  a  brief  hiatus  in  the 
colony's  history,  and  its  effect  upon  Connecticut  institu- 
tions was  practically  nil.  As  a  type  of  the  New  England 
corporate  colony,  therefore,  Connecticut  possesses  certain 
advantages  over  its  prototype  Massachusetts.  The  prog- 
ress of  the  latter  in  the  evolution  of  a  Commonwealth  was 
seriously  hampered,  if  not  cut  short,  by  the  substitution 
of  the  provincial  charter  of  1691  for  the  old  corporate 
charter.  Connecticut,  on  the  other  hand,  was  allowed  to 
complete  its  colonial  development  largely  independent  of 
external  control.  It  would  probably  be  an  error  to  say 
that  Connecticut  was  in  no  way  affected  by  the  changing 
attitude  of  the  authorities  in  England  in  relation  to 
colonial  matters.  The  growth  of  imperial  control,  and 
the  formation  of  more  intimate  relations  between  the 
home  government  and  the  American  colonies,  which  was 
a  feature  of  the  English  colonial  policy  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  seventeenth  and  of  the  eighteenth  centuries, 
unquestionably  had  its  influence  upon  the  internal  de- 
velopment of  the  colony.  Probably  many  ventures  were 
abandoned,  and  others  not  entered  upon,  because  of  the 
fear  of  the  interference  from  England.  The  colony  lead- 
ers had  an  ever  present  example  in  Massachusetts  of 

1 


Z  CONNECTICUT    AS   A   CORPORATE    COLONY. 

what  too  strenuous  opposition  to  Imperial  control  was 
liable  to  result  in,  and  they  probably  deemed  it  wiser  to 
bend  than  be  broken.  But  this  does  not  alter  the  essen- 
tial fact  that  Connecticut  presents  the  spectacle  of  a  self- 
centered  corporate  colony,  which,  throughout  its  colonial 
history,  shaped  its  own  institutions  in  its  own  way.  That 
this  was  done  generally  with  wise  conservatism,  was  due 
in  a  large  measure  to  the  sagacity  and  good  sense  of  the 
colonists,  and  to  the  ability  of  the  leaders  who  were  called 
to  direct  the  affairs  of  state. 

Connecticut  has  been  referred  to  as  a  type  of  the  New 
England  corporate  colony.  A  word  needs  to  be  said  as 
to  the  chief  characteristics  of  this  type  of  colonial  gov- 
ernment. English  colonization  during  the  seventeenth 
century  was  the  result  of  private  initiative.  The  English 
Crown  was  not  directly  a  colonizing  agency.  It  might, 
and  it  did,  encourage  colonization,  by  making  large  grants 
of  territory,  and  by  bestowing  trade  privileges  and  sub- 
ordinate rights  of  government,  but  the  Sovereign  was 
slow  to  embark  upon  adventures  involving  considerable 
financial  outlay,  with  no  great  certainty  of  success.  Such 
exploits  were  left  to  more  enterprising  individuals.  If 
they  succeeded,  it  would  redound  to  the  honor  and  pos- 
sible profit  of  the  Crown ;  if  they  failed  the  Sovereign  was 
not  the  loser. 

Individual  effort  in  colonization  found  expression  in 
two  types  of  colonial  agencies,  the  proprietorship,  and 
the  corporate  colony.  It  was  only  when  colonization  had 
passed  beyond  the  experimental  stage,  and  the  possibili- 
ties of  profitable  exploitation  of  the  colonies  had  become 
manifest,  that  the  King  took  a  direct  interest  in  and  con- 
trol of  colonization.  Such  control  implied  the  metamor- 
phosing of  the  two  earlier  types  of  colonial  government 
into  a  new  type,  which  would  bring  the  colonies  into 


INTRODUCTION.  6 

closer  relations  with  the  mother  country.  This  transi- 
tion introduced  the  third  type,  that  of  the  royal  province. 
Viewed  then  from  the  standpoint  of  imperial  control,  the 
three  types  of  colonial  government  would  be  grouped,  the 
corporate  and  proprietary  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  royal 
on  the  other. 

But  there  is  another  way  of  looking  at  the  colonies, 
namely,  from  the  standpoint  of  their  internal  organiza- 
tion, leaving  out  of  sight  entirely,  their  relations  with 
the  Home  government.  From  this  point  of  view,  as  will 
be  seen,  a  different  grouping  of  the  three  types  is  neces- 
sary. 

The  proprietorship  was  the  earliest  type  of  colonial 
agency.  The  granting  of  large  tracts  of  unsettled  terri- 
tory was  a  convenient  and  inexpensive  method  of  re- 
warding favorite  courtiers  or  needy  nobles.  In  making 
such  grants  the  fief  was  selected  as  the  form  of  grant, 
while  in  conferring  subordinate  rights  of  government,  the 
powers  of  the  Counts  palatine  were  selected  as  a  model.  ^ 
This  implied  conferring  upon  the  Proprietor  semi-regal 
powers;  he,  or  they,  became  the  head  and  source  of  all 
governmental  authority  in  the  province.  In  essence  the 
government  of  the  proprietary  province  was  monarchical. 
But  in  time  there  came  to  exist  in  all  the  proprietary 
governments,  generally  by  concession  of  the  proprietors, 
a  democratic  element.  This  was  represented  by  the 
lower,  the  elected,  branch  of  the  legislature.  Conflict  was 
almost  certain  to  develop  between  the  monarchic  element 
in  the  government,  represented  by  the  Proprietor  or  his 
deputies,  and  the  democratic  element  in  the  legislature. 
This  conflict  is  the  central  thread  in  the  constitutional 
development  of  the  proprietary  provinces.     What  has 

^  Osgood,  Proprietary  Province  as  a  Form  of  Colonial  Government, 
Am.  Hist.  Review,  1897. 


4  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

been  said  of  the  internal  organization  of  the  proprietary 
provinces,  is  equally  true  of  the  royal  type,  the  King 
merely  taking  the  place  of  the  individual  proprietor.  If 
any  distinction  is  to  be  drawn  between  the  two  types,  it 
would  be  that,  owing  largely  to  the  more  exalted  and 
powerful  position  of  the  King,  the  prerogative  element  in 
the  royal  provinces  was  stronger  than  in  the  proprietary 
provinces.  In  a  broad  sense  the  internal  organization 
of  the  two  types  was  the  same;  neither  was  self -con- 
sistent, both  contained  elements  which  were  discordant, 
and  harmony  could  be  restored  only  by  the  elimination 
of  the  democratic  or  the  prerogative  element  of  the  sys- 
tem. As  events  proved,  the  latter  was  destined  to  give 
away. 

When  we  come  to  examine  the  internal  organization  of 
the  corporate  type,  a  marked  difference  appears.  As  the 
fief  and  the  palatinate  were  the  models  upon  which  the 
proprietary  grants  were  made,  so  the  trading  corporation 
was  the  pattern  for  the  corporate  type.  This  implied 
the  centering  of  authority  in  a  "General  Court"  com- 
posed of  all  members  of  the  company,  or  all  freemen  of 
the  colony  when  the  company  and  colony  became  one. 
By  this  Court  were  chosen  all  the  officials  of  the  colony, 
and  from  it  radiated  all  the  various  functions  of  govern- 
ment. It  became  the  very  heart  of  the  colony's  political 
body.  In  this  type  of  colony,  the  immediate  source  of 
authority  was  the  colonists  themselves,  not  the  King  nor 
the  proprietor.  From  the  first,  the  democratic  element 
was  supreme,  the  monarchic  element  entirely  lacking. 
There  was  then,  nothing  inherent  in  the  internal  structure 
of  the  corporate  colonies,  which  would  lead  to  such  a  con- 
flict as  has  been  indicated  was  inevitable  in  the  royal  and 
proprietary  provinces.  It  was  an  easy  and  natural 
transition  from  the  type  of  corporate  colony,  to  the  dem- 


INTRODUCTION.  O 

ocratic  commonwealth.  No  material  change  was  needed 
to  fit  these  colonies  into  their  new  places  in  the  American 
nation.  Nothing  more  clearly  shows  this  than  the  fact 
that  the  only  two  corporate  colonies,  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island,  which  remained  such  throughout  the  colo- 
nial period,  retained  their  old  corporate  charters,  as  com- 
monwealth constitutions,  one  for  more  than  forty  years, 
and  the  other  for  more  than  sixty  years,  after  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  colonies  from  England.^ 

From  the  standpoint  of  internal  organization,  then,  the 
three  tyipes  of  colonial  government  would  be  grouped; 
the  royal  and  proprietary  provinces  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  corporate  colonies  on  the  other. 

Of  the  three  American  colonies  which  are  included  in 
the  corporate  type,  ^  one,  Massachusetts,  was  founded  by 
a  corporation  created  in  England,  while  two,  Connecticut 
and  Rhode  Island,  were  formed  by  the  creation  of  a  cor- 
poration in  the  colony.  The  three,  however,  became 
identical  in  form,  through  the  removal  of  the  Massachu- 
setts corporation  into  New  England,  and  its  identification 
with  the  colony. 

During  the  first  twenty-five  years  of  the  history  of  Con- 
necticut, the  colonists  lived  under  a  de  facto  government 
formed  by  the  voluntary  compact  of  the  settlers.  While 
they  lacked  the  guarantees  of  a  royal  charter,  they  were 
also  free  from  its  restrictions.  The  colonists  might,  if 
they  chose,  have  struck  out  along  lines  radically  new. 
But  this  was  not  done.    The  founders  of  Connecticut  were 

^Connecticut  retained  her  charter  as  a  state  constitution  until  1818, 
Rhode  Island  until  1842. 

«  Virginia  though  founded  by  a  trading  company  did  not  attain  the  char- 
acteristics of  a  corporate  colony,  as  the  London  Company  did  not  remove 
to  Virginia  and  become  merged  with  the  colony.  The  two  colonies  of 
Plymouth  and  New  Haven,  while  they  developed  the  internal  structure  of 
corporate  colonies,  never  received  royal  charters  and  in  time  became  ab- 
sorbed, one  by  Massachusetts  and  the  other  by  Connecticut. 


b  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

Puritans  to  the  core.  Most  of  them  had  lived  in  the 
Massachusetts  colony  for  a  greater  or  less  period  of  time, 
and  were  in  general  sympathy  with  the  principles  and 
ideals  of  that  colony.  Nothing  was  more  natural  than 
that  they  should  reproduce  in  their  new  homes  a  gov- 
ernment similar  in  outline,  if  not  in  detail,  to  that  of  the 
Bay  Colony.  That  this  was  done,  becomes  apparent  from 
an  examination  of  the  records.  In  consequence,  Con- 
necticut formed  by  conscious  imitation  of  Massachusetts, 
a  government  embodying  all  the  essentials  of  a  corporate 
colony.  Nothing  was  lacking  but  a  royal  charter  to  make 
the  de  facto  government  de  jure,  and  when  through  the 
ability  of  John  Winthrop,  the  younger,  and  the  gen- 
!  erosity  of  Charles  II,  such  a  charter  was  obtained,  it 
I  merely  confirmed  an  already  existing  condition  of  affairs. 
It  is  the  purpose  of  this  study  to  trace  out  in  consider- 
able detail,  the  internal  development  of  Connecticut  as  a 
type  of  the  corporate  colony.  Emphasis  will  naturally 
be  laid  upon  constitutional  questions ;  economic  and  social 
considerations  only  being  touched  upon  as  they  affected, 
or  were  affected  by  the  constitutional  development  of  the 
colony.  Secondly  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  consider 
Connecticut  as  a  part  of  the  British  Empire;  to  show 
how  her  position  was,  from  the  standpoint  of  imperial 
control,  an  anomalous  one;  how  the  English  administra- 
tors tried  to  bring  the  colony  into  closer  and  more  har- 
monious relations  with  the  home  government,  involving 
several  attacks  upon  the  charter,  and  finally,  how  the 
colony  was  enabled  to  avert  these  attacks  and  preserve 
its  institutions  intact  throughout  the  colonial  period. 


CHAPTER   I. 

Organs  op  Legislation  and  Administration. 

The  constitutional  history  of  Connecticut  begins  with 
the  removal  from  Massachusetts  in  1636-37  of  the  three 
river  towns  of  Hartford,  Windsor  and  Wether sfield.^ 
After  residing  in  the  bay  colony  for  a  number  of  years, 
the  inhabitants  of  these  towns,  for  a  variety  of  reasons,^ 
sought  new  homes  on  the  banks  of  the  Connecticut.  In 
granting  permission  to  remove,  the  General  Court  of 
Massachusetts  appointed  a  commission  of  eight  of  the 
prospective  settlers,  to  order  the  affairs  of  the  new  settle- 
njents,  for  a  period  of  one  year.^  No  attempt  was  made 
by  the  parent  colony,  after  the  towns  had  left  her  juris- 
diction, to  exercise  any  manner  of  control  over  them. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  commission  was  account- 
able in  any  way  for  its  acts  to  the  authorities  of  Massa- 
chusetts. On  May  11th,  1637,  at  the  end  of  the  year  for 
which  the  commissioners  were  chosen,  there  met  at  Hart- 
ford the  first  ''Genrall  Corte"  of  the  infant  coloay. 
This  Court  was  probably  summoned  by  the  retiring  com- 
mission, as  this  was  one  of  their  ^specified  powers.  "  The 
new  body  consisted  of  six  Magistrates,  four  of  them 
members  of  the  old  Commission,  and  nine  Deputies 
elected  by  the  towns,  the  three  from  each  town  being 
known  as  its  ' '  comitee.  "^  The  records  do  not  indicate 
the  manner  in  which  the  Magistrates  were  chosen,  but 

*  The  three  towns  while  in  Massachusetts  and  for  a  year  after  their 
removal  were  called  respectively,  Newtown,  Dorchester  and  Watertown. 

*  Osgood,  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  I,  301. 
"Mass.  Col.  Rec,  I,  170. 

*  Conn.  Col.  Rec,  I,  9. 

7 


8  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE    COLONY. 

from  a  contemporary  authority  we  learn  that  they  were 
elected  by  the  Deputies.^  In  this  form  the  General  Court 
continued  until  the  formation  of  the  famous  ''Funda- 
mental Orders"  in  1639. 

In  this  "First  Written  Constitution"  it  was  provided 
that  there  should  be  a  General  Court,  which  should  meet 
in  two  stated  sessions  annually,  and  at  such  other  times 
as  was  deemed  necessary.  The  spring  session  of  the 
General  Court,  known  as  the  Court  of  Election,  consisted 
of  all  the  freemen  that  wished  to  attend,  and  at  this  Court 
were  elected  the  Governor  and  Magisti'ates,  and  such  other 
officers  as  were  from  time  to  time  provided.  When  the 
elections  had  been  completed,  the  Court  organized  for 
legislation,  and  consisted  simply  of  a  Governor,  at  least 
six  Magistrates,  and  Deputies  from  the  towns. ^  The  fall 
meeting,  and  such  others  as  were  from  time  to  time  sum- 
moned by  the  Governor,  were  similarly  organized.  The 
quorum  of  the  Court  when  organized  for  legislation,  was 
fixed  at  at  least  four  Magistrates,  with  the  Governor  or 
a  moderator,  and  a  major  part  of  the  Deputies. 

The  composition  of  the  Court  of  Election  as  a  primary 
electoral  body,  was  soon  changed.  The  spread  of  settle- 
ments had  made  a  general  meeting  of  the  freemen  incon- 
venient, and  the  practice  of  sending  the  votes  of  the  free- 
men to  the  Court  of  Election  by  the  Deputies  of  the  towns 
was  early  adopted.'^  With  this  adoption  of  proxy  voting 
the  distinction  between  the  composition  of  the  Court  of 
Election  and  the  ordinary  sessions  of  the  General  Court, 
practically  disappeared.^ 

iConn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  I,  13. 

2  The  constitution  fixed  the  number  of  Deputies  at  four  from  the  towns 
of  Hartford,  Windsor  and  Wethersfield  and  for  such  other  towns  as  were 
later  admitted  "  as  many  as  the  Corte  shall  judge  raeete." 

»  Conn.  Col.  Rec,  I,  346. 

*  Bishop,  History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colonies,  Columbia  Univ. 
Studies,  III,  139. 


ORGANS   OF   LEGISLATION   AND   ADMINISTRATION.  V 

The  constitution  specified  in  detail  the  manner  in  which 
the  Governor,  Magistrates  and  Deputies  were  to  be 
chosen.  The  ballot  was  used  in  all  elections.  All  persons 
chosen  to  the  Magistracy  were  required  to  be  freemen 
of  the  colony,  and  to  have  been  formerly  nominated  in 
some  General  Court  by  the  Deputies  or  the  Court  as  a 
whole.  In  the  election  of  Governor  and  Magistrates,  the 
person  receiving  the  greatest  number  of  votes  was  chosen 
Governor;  then  the  name  of  each  person  that  had  been 
placed  in  nomination  was  voted  upon  separately,  and  all 
those  that  received  a  greater  number  of  affirmative  than 
negative  votes,  were  chosen  Magistrates,  provided  at 
least  six  were  so  chosen. 

The  Deputies  were  chosen  before  each  session  of  the 
General  Court  by  the  admitted  inhabitants  of  the  towns, 
at  town  meetings  summoned  for  the  purpose  by  the  con- 
stables. 

The  constitution  also  provided  a  special  manner  for 
organizing  the  General  Court.  In  case  the  Governor  and 
Magistrates  should  fail  to  summon  the  two  stated  ses- 
sions, and  at  such  other  times  as  the  '^occations  of  the 
Commonwealth  require,"  the  freemen  were  empowered 
to  do  so.  Such  a  Court  should  consist  of  a  majority  of 
the  freemen,  or  their  deputies,  presided  over  by  a  Mod- 
erator chosen  by  the  freemen.^ 

The  constitution  seems  to  distinguish  two  bodies  of 
electors.  Only  such  as  were  "admitted  freemen"  could 
take  part  in  the  choice  of  the  Governor  and  Magistrates 
at  the  Court  of  Election.  On  the  other  hand,  all  ''ad- 
mitted inhabitants"  of  the  towns  had  a  voice  in  the 

*  This  provision,  which  was  never  put  in  practice,  was  an  expression  of 
the  democratic  sentiments  of  the  founders  of  Connecticut.  It  was  probably 
suggested  by  the  controversy  which  was  carried  on  in  the  early  years  of 
the  Massachusetts  colony  over  the  unlimited  power  of  the  Magistrates. 
Osgood,  American  Colonies,  I,  157. 


10  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

choice  of  deputies.'  This  distinction,  however,  if  it  was 
ever  clearly  recognized,  in  time  disappeared.^ 

The  Magistrates  and  Deputies  sat  and  voted  as  one 
body,  and  the  latter  which  at  first  was  double  the  number 
of  the  former,  and  growing  larger  with  the  admission  of 
each  new  town,  might  if  the}^  saw  fit,  exert  a  preponder- 
ating control  over  legislation.'*  This  condition  of  affairs 
continued  until  1645,  when  the  Magistrates  were  given 
the  negative  voice,  although  they  continued  to  sit  with 
the  Deputies  in  one  house,  until  the  end  of  the  seventeenth 
century.^ 

The  General  Court,  as  organized  by  the  Fundamental 
Orders,  continued  with  but  slight  change  until  the  grant- 
ing of  the  Eoyal  Charter.    The  quorum  of  the  Assistants 

1  Col.  Rec,  I,  21,  23. 

2  The  admission  of  freemen  was  one  of  the  functions  of  the  General 
Court.  At  first  any  person  of  proper  age  and  "  peaceable  conversation  " 
might  be  admitted.  In  1659  it  was  provided  that  only  persons  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  having  a  personal  estate  of  30  pounds,  or  those  who  had  held 
some  office  in  the  commonwealth  might  be  admitted.  Two  years  before 
the  same  qualifications  were  required  for  "  admitted  inhabitants."  In 
1675  the  property  qualification  was  fixed  at  ten  pounds  estate  in  land,  and 
in  1689  at  forty  shillings.  In  the  same  year  the  power  of  admitting  free- 
men was  given  to  the  local  authorities.  Any  person  possessing  a  freehold 
estate  to  the  value  of  forty  shillings,  upon  presentation  of  a  certificate  to 
that  effect  from  the  selectmen  of  the  town  where  he  resided  should  be 
enrolled  as  a  freeman  without  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  Court.  With 
this  act  the  distinction  between  freemen  and  admitted  inliabitants  dis- 
appears.     Col.  Eec,  1,  293,  331;  II,  253;  IV,  11;  VII,  259. 

The  proportion  of  freemen  to  the  total  male  population  of  voting  age 
is  difficult  to  ascertain,  but  it  was  probably  a  small  proportion.  From  the 
formation  of  the  Constitution  to  the  granting  of  the  charter,  a  period  of 
more  than  twenty  years,  there  are  on  record  but  229  names  of  persons 
admitted  as  freemen.  In  1009  the  total  number  of  freemen  was  one  thou- 
sand seven  hundred  and  eighty-nine  out  of  a  population  of  three  thousand 
males  capable  of  bearing  arms.  In  1740  in  a  warmly  contested  election 
there  were  four  thousand  votes  cast  while  the  male  population  of  military 
age  was  about  fifteen  thousand.  Col.  Rec,  II,  518;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc,  III, 
262;  Douglass  Summary,  II,  179.  • 

'  The  number  of  Magistrates  gradually  increased  from  six  to  twelve. 

«Col.  Rec,  I,  119. 


ORGANS   OF   LEGISLATION    AND   ADMINISTRATION.  11 

in  general  Court  was  reduced  in  1644  from  four  to  three. ^ 
In  1646  the  General  Court  changed  the  time  of  holding 
the  Court  of  Election,  from  April  to  May.^  In  1654  it 
was  provided  that  in  the  absence  of  the  Governor  and 
Deputy  Governor,  a  major  part  of  the  Magistrates  might 
summon  a  meeting  of  the  Court,  which  should  be  pre- 
sided over  by  a  Moderator,  chosen  by  the  members  of  the 
Court.^  In  1661  the  General  Court  suggested  to  the  free- 
men that  the  number  of  deputies  be  reduced  one  half, 
but  no  action  was  taken  upon  the  proposition.^ 

The  Royal  Charter,  issued  in  1662,  made  some  minor 
changes  in  the  organization  of  the  General  Court.  The 
number  of  Magistrates,  which  had  grown  from  six  to 
twelve,  was  fixed  at  the  latter  number.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  number  of  deputies  was  restricted  to  two  from 
each  town.^  The  Charter  contemplated  the  choice  of  the 
Governor,  Magistrates  and  other  officers,  at  a  general 
meeting  of  the  freemen.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  had  also 
been  provided  in  the  Fundamental  Orders;  but  the  con- 
venient method  of  voting  by  proxy  which  had  been 
adopted,  was  continued  despite  the  provisions  of  the 
Charter.  The  changes  in  the  organization  of  the  General 
Court  subsequent  to  the  granting  of  the  Charter  were, 
with  one  or  two  exceptions,  of  but  slight  importance. 

In  1689  a  change  was  made  in  the  manner  of  nominat- 
ing the  Governor,  Deputy  Governor  and  Assistants, 
whereby  the  nominations  were  made  directly  by  the  free- 
men.^    This  provision  lasted  but  three  years,  when  the 

Ubid.,  I,  119. 

"Ibid.,  I,  140. 

'Ibid.,  I,  25G. 

*Ibid.,  I,  372. 

"Poore's  Charters  and  Constitutions,  I,  253  et  seq.     Col.  Rec,  II,  1. 

6  Col.  Rec,  IV,  12. 


12  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

former  method  of  nomination  by  the  General  Court  was 
restored.^  Five  years  later  the  method  of  direct  nomina- 
tion was  again  resorted  to.^  In  1698  The  General  Court 
obtained  the  form  it  was  destined  to  maintain  throughout 
the  colonial  era.  It  will  be  remembered  that  while  the 
Magistrates  had  been  given  the  negative  voice  in  1645, 
they  had  continued  to  sit  with  the  Deputies  as  a  uni- 
cameral legislature.  In  1698,  however,  the  two  houses 
were  separated.^  The  Upper  House,  now  often  called 
the  Council,^  consisted  of  the  Governor,  Deputy  Gover- 
nojv  and  the  Assistants.  The  Lower  House  consisted  of 
the  deputies  from  the  towns,  who  were  empowered  to 
choose  a  sjoeaker  to  preside  over  their  deliberations,  to 
appoint  all  needful  officers,  and  to  make  all  necessary 
rules  for  carrying  on  the  business  of  the  house.    To  each 

Ubid.,  IV,  81. 

'  Ibid.,  IV,  223.  These  changes  were  the  result  of  a  controversy  be- 
tween the  "  aristocratic  "  and  democratic  parties  in  the  colony.  Samuel 
Willis  in  several  letters  to  Fitz  John  Winthrop  throws  some  light  on  these 
controversies.  Willis  was  identified  with  the  colonial  aristocracy  of  the 
time  which  felt  that  the  democratic  spirit  was  becoming  too  strong  in  the 
colony.  He  suggested  that  a  modification  of  the  charter  be  obtained  from 
the  King  so  that  "  persons  of  mean  and  low  degree  be  not  improved  in 
the  chiefest  place  of  civill  and  military  affairs  .  .  .  but  that  persons  of 
parintage,  education,  abilitye,  and  integrity  be  settled  in  such  offices."  At 
another  time  he  writes :  "  INIr.  Henry  Woolcott  and  younge  Mr.  Chester  both 
secluded  the  Houses  of  Comons  the  last  sessions  in  Octbr,  and  an  eminent 
syder-drinker  in  the  roome  of  one  and  a  person  risen  out  of  obscurity  in 
the  place  of  the  other."      Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  6th  Series,  III,  17,  31. 

3  The  separation  of  the  two  houses  was  another  movement  on  the  part 
of  the  colonial  aristocracy.  Willis  in  writing  to  Winthrop  said, — "  There 
are  two  things  effected  since  your  Honr  came  to  the  Governmnt  wch  I 
judge  will  much  conduce  to  the  wellfaire  of  the  Colony  if  they  be  con- 
tinued: That  the  Magistrates  and  Deputies  sitt  distinct  &  that  the  justices 
be  stated  and  comissioned  and  not  annually  chosen,  wch  will  much 
strengthen  the  Governmt,  when  they  are  not  at  the  despose  of  the  arbitrary 
humors  of  the  people,  and  yet  subject  to  be  called  to  accompt  by  the 
General  Court  or  to  be  displaced  for  delinquency."  Mass.  Hist.  Col.,  6th 
Series,  III,  44. 

*  Not  to  be  confused  with  the  Governor's  Council. 


ORGANS   OP  LEGISLATION    AND   ADMINISTRATION.  13 

house  was  granted  the  negative  voice,'  and  a  parity  of 
powers  in  legislation.^ 

Throughout  the  seventeenth  century,  the  meetings  of  the 
General  Court  had  been  held  regularly  at  Hartford.^  In 
1701  it  was  provided  that  the  October  session  of  the 
Court  should  be  held  at  New  Haven,  the  spring  session 
continuing  at  Hartford.^  Ten  years  later  this  arrange- 
ment was  discontinued,  only  to  be  reestablished  the  fol- 
lowing year,^  and  in  this  form  it  continued  throughout 
the  colonial  period. 

The  powers  of  the  commission  which  controlled  the 
affairs  of  the  three  river  towns  during  the  first  year  after 
their  migration,  were  stated  in  the  law  creating  it.  It 
was  empowered  to  administer  justice,  and  to  make  such 
orders  **for  the  peaceable  and  quiett  ordering  the 
affaires"  of  the  plantations,  in  the  granting  of  lots,  reg- 
ulating trade,  military  discipline  and  defensive  war.  It 
was  also  empowered  to  summon  the  inhabitants  together 
as  a  Court.®  From  the  records  it  is  apparent  that  the 
commissioners  exercised  most  of  the  functions  conferred 
upon  them.  They  regulated  trade  with  the  Indians, 
swore  in  constables  for  the  towns,  provided  for  the  main- 
tenance of  military  watches  and  trainings,  gave  names  to 
the  towns,  ratified  certain  church  proceedings,  and  per- 
formed the  duties  of  a  court  of  justice  and  probate.' 

The  Powers  of  the  General  Court  which  displaced  the 
Commission  are  not  set  forth  in  any  law  or  order,  but  it 

1  Col.  Rec,  IV,  282. 

^  I  can  find  ^o  warrant  in  the  records  for  the  statement  that  the 
Deputies  alone  could  initiate  legislation  granting  money.  Jones,  History 
of  Taxation  in  Connecticut,  J.  H.  U.  8.,  XIV,  375. 

•  Except  during  the  first  year  of  the  colony's  history  when  the  meetings 
alternated  among  the  three  towns.     Col.  Rec,  I,  1,  2,  3. 

*  Col.  Rec,  IV,  343. 

6  Col.  Rec,  V,  328,  381. 
6  Mass.  Col.  Rec,  I,  170. 
T  Conn.  Col.  Rec,  I,  1-9. 


14  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

assumed  and  exercised  a  still  wider  control  over  the 
towns,  than  had  the  Commission.  Its  first  act  was  a 
declaration  of  war  against  the  Pequot  Indians.  It  fixed 
the  quota  of  men  and  supplies  to  be  furnished  by  each 
town ;  it  levied  a  tax  upon  the  towns,  and  chose  a  treas- 
urer to  collect  it.  In  short  this  General  Court  was,  in  all 
essential  points,  a  reproduction  of  its  Massachusetts 
prototype.  There  is  no  evidence  in  the  records  that  the 
towns  bore  any  different  relation  to  the  General  Court, 
than  was  the  case  in  the  Bay  colony.  The  theory,  which 
has  been  advocated  by  several  writers  of  Connecticut 
history,  that  Connecticut  was  founded  by  a  federal  union 
of  three  independent  towns,  with  residuary  powers  of 
government  in  the  localities  appears  to  be  entirely  erron- 
eous.^ 

AYhen  in  1639  the  people  of  Connecticut  organized  their 
government  on  a  more  permanent  basis,  the  powers  of 
the  General  Court  were  more  definitely  specified.  It  was 
stated  that  in  the  General  Court  should  reside  "the  su- 
preme power  of  the  Commonwealth"  to  make  and  repeal 
laws,  admit  freemen,  dispose  of  the  public  land,  inflict 
punishments  for  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  and  ''deale 
in  any  other  matter  that  concerns  the  good  of  this  com- 
onwelth,"  except  the  election  of  Magistrates,  which 
was  done  by  the  whole  body  of  freemen,^  The  power  thus 
conferred,  or  that  which  the  legislature  assumed,  was 
much  greater  than  at  the  present  day  is  thought  safe  or 

*  Johnston,  Connecticut,  a  Study  of  a  Commonwealth  Democracy,  61. 
For  a  full  and  clear  examination  of  this  question  see  Andrews,  Three 
River  Towns  of  Connecticut,  ./.  H.  U.  S.,  VII. 

2  The  interpretation  placed  by  Dr.  Bronson  on  this  clause  of  the  con- 
stitution, namely,  that  the  "  supreme  power  of  the  commonwealth "  was 
not  in  the  ordinary  General  Court  but  only  in  the  extraordinary  Court 
summoned  by  the  freemen,  does  not  seem  to  be  justified  if  the  tenth 
article  is  read  as  a  whole  and  in  connection  with  the  other  articles  of 
the  constitution.  Bronson,  Early  Government  in  Connecticut,  New  Haven 
Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  III,  316  et  seq. 


ORGANS   OF   LEGISLATION   AND   ADMINISTRATION.  15 

expedient  to  grant  to  such  bodies.  Within  its  sphere  the 
power  of  the  General  Court  resembled  much  more  closely 
that  of  the  British  Parliament  to-day,  than  that  of  our 
own  federal  or  state  legislatures.  In  a  very  real  sense 
it  was  the  * '  supreme  power  of  the  commonwealth. ' '  The 
founders  of  Connecticut  did  not  conceive  of  a  government 
of  three  coordinate  branches.  The  legislature  was  un- 
questionably the  preeminent  branch  of  the  governmental 
machinery.  The  executive  and  judicial  branches  were 
in  a  large  measure  subordinate,  rather  than  coordinate 
parts  of  the  government.  Furthermore,  the  competence 
of  the  General  Court  was  not  limited  by  the  so-called  con- 
stitution. Whenever  the  General  Court  felt  that  the 
^'Fimdamentals"  should  be  altered,  it  was  done  with  no 
more  apparent  formality,  than  was  required  in  passing 
an  ordinary  law.  No  extraordinary  majorities  were  re- 
quired, nor  was  it  necessary  to  submit  amendments  to  the 
people  for  ratification.^  There  were  no  individual  rights 
which  the  General  Court  was  bound  to  respect.  The  idea 
of  an  absolute  sphere  of  individual  immunity  from  all 
governmental  action,  which  forms  such  an  essential  part 
of  the  modem  American  theory  of  government^  was 
quite  foreign  to  the  political  science  of  our  Puritan  an- 
cestors. 

That  the  legislators  used  their  extensive  powers  to  the 

'  In  the  light  of  these  easily  ascertained  facta,  it  seems  strange  that 
so  many  writers  have  maintained  that  the  constitution  of  1639  was  the 
first  example  of  a  "  written  "  constitution  in  history.  In  point  of  fact  it 
lacked  the  most  essential  characteristic  of  a  "  written  "  constitution,  viz., 
that  it  was  not  the  "  Supreme  law  of  the  land  "  in  the  sense  that  it  bound 
the  legislature  as  well  as  the  people.  In  force  the  constitution  was  no 
mere  than  so  many  statutes.  Johnson,  op.  cit.,  63;  Fiske,  Beginnings  of 
New  England,  127;  Bancroft,  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  I,  402;  Bryce,  Studies  in 
History  and  Jurisprudence,  I,  170. 

2  These  immimities  are  contained  in  the  so-called  "  Bills  of  Rights " 
found  in  all  modern  American  constitutions.  No  such  Bill  of  Rights  waa 
contained  in  the  Connecticut  instrument  of  1639. 


16  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

full,  a  brief  examination  of  the  records  will  reveal.  To 
the  rulers  of  Connecticut  no  subject  was  too  trivial,  and 
none  too  great  to  be  considered  a  proper  subject  for  legis- 
lation. From  the  making  of  war  to  the  building  of 
bridges,  and  from  the  forhiation  of  towns  to  the  regula- 
tion of  wages,  all  questions  which  advanced  or  retarded 
the  sum  of  human  happiness  were  undertaken  with  equal 
facility  by  the  Solons  of  Connecticut.  For  the  most  part 
inexperienced  in  matters  of  government,  the  work  of 
the  legislature  was  crude,  and  often  not  founded  on  any 
fixed  principles.  Few  laws  were  passed  until  the  neces- 
sity for  them  was  felt,  and  then  they  were  applied  to  the 
particular  case  under  consideration,  with  the  result  that 
much  of  the  legislation  was  of  the  kind  called  special.  A 
great  part  of  the  legislation  was  initiated  by  means  of 
petitions.  These  petitions  touched  a  great  variety  of 
subjects,  and  each  one  was  decided  upon  its  merits.  The 
use  of  committees  as  a  part  of  the  legislative  machinery 
early  became  common,  but  the  committee  system  was 
never  perfected  to  the  extent  which  appears  in  the  mod- 
ern legislative  regimes. 

Those  functions  of  government  which  are  usually 
termed  administrative,  in  distinction  from  the  purely 
legislative  functions,  were  largely  retained  by  the  General 
Court,  and  not  given  to  the  executive  authorities.  In 
military  administration,  while  a  committee  or  council  of 
war  was  usually  appointed,  in  times  of  danger,  it  was  the 
creature  of  the  General  Court,  subject  to  its  orders  and 
responsible  to  it  for  its  actions.  The  administration  of 
financial  affairs  was  from  the  first  under  the  control  of 
the  General  Court.  The  collection  and  expenditure  of 
public  revenue,  the  regulation  of  the  monetary  system, 
and  all  the  details  of  fiscal  affairs,  were  completely  con- 
trolled by  the  General  Court.     In  judicial  administra- 


ORGANS   OF   LEGISLATION   AND   ADMINISTRATION.  17 

tion,*  the  legislature  again  was  supreme.  Courts  were 
created,  and  their  jurisdiction  fixed  by  the  General  Court, 
while  the  judges  and  justices,  for  the  most  part,  were 
appointed  by  the  Court.  In  that  department  of  adminis- 
tration which  might  be  termed  ' '  foreign  affairs ' '  i.  e.,  in 
questions  concerning  the  relation  of  the  colony  to  its 
neighbors,  and  to  the  mother  country,  the  legislature 
maintained  control.  The  Governor,  it  is  true,  was  the 
medium  through  whom  communications  were  sent,  and 
received,  to  and  from  the  home  government  or  the  neigh- 
boring colonies,  but  he  was  responsible  to  the  Court  for 
his  acts,  and  referred  all  matters  of  importance  to  that 
body.  Finally,  in  the  administration  of  internal  affairs, 
i.  e.,  in  providing  for  the  health,  peace  and  moral  well 
being  of  the  people,  the  activity  of  the  General  Court 
was  detailed  to  the  point  of  becoming  burdensome.'^  The 
building  and  repairing  of  roads  and  bridges,  and  pro- 
visions for  religion  and  education,  were  important  func- 
tions of  the  legislature,  while  the  interference  of  the  Gen- 
eral Court  in  private  business  and  personal  affairs,  was 
of  a  nature  that  to-day  would  be  considered  intolerable. 

The  power  of  appointment,  which  at  the  present  time 
is  more  often  associated  with  the  executive  than  the  legis- 
lative department,  was  in  a  large  measure  retained  by 

*  By  this  is  meant  not  the  ordinary  procedure  of  the  courts  of  justice, 
but  the  creation  and  regulation  of  such  courts.  Goodnow,  Comparative 
Administrative  Law,  I,  1  et  seq.  The  position  of  the  General  Court  as  a 
part  of  the  judicial  machinery  of  the  colony  will  be  treated  in  the  chapter 
on  judicial  affairs. 

2  One  or  two  instances  might  be  noted.  In  1641  the  General  Court 
ordered  the  constables  of  the  towns  to  observe  the  persons  in  their  towns, 
and  apprehend  such  as  wore  clothes  "  beyond  their  condition  and  rank " 
and  present  the  same  to  the  Court  for  censure.  In  the  same  year  the 
Court  having  learned  that  the  soil  of  the  colony  would  produce  hemp  and 
flax,  ordered  that  every  family  should  plant  at  least  one  spoonful  of  hemp 
seed.  The  wages  of  laborers  and  mechanics  were  specified  in  detail  and 
any  _peraQ,n.  accepting  higher  wages  was  open  to  the  censure  oi  the  Coutt. 
Col.  Rec,  I,  52,  61,  64,  65. 


18  CONNECTICUT    AS    A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

the  General  Court.  Furthermore,  in  ease  of  a  vacancy  in 
an  elective  office,  from  death  or  other  cause,  the  Assem- 
bly assumed  the  right  to  fill  such  vacancy.^  Upon  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  legislature  into  two  houses,  a  serious  and 
prolonged  dispute  arose  as  to  whether  each  house  pos- 
sessed the  negative  voice  in  appointments  and  elections, 
as  was  the  case  in  legislation.  In  1707,  upon  the  death 
of  Governor  Fitz  John  "Winthrop  while  in  office,  a  special 
session  of  the  General  Court  was  called  to  fill  the  vacancy. 
On  this  occasion,  the  votes  of  the  members  of  both  houses 
were  mixed  together  before  they  were  counted.^  In  1716, 
however,  the  two  houses  having  failed  to  agree  in  the 
choice  of  certain  officers,  the  Deputies  passed  the  follow- 
ing resolution. 

"Resolved;  That  since  ye  Honble  ye  Upper  House  do 
not  think  fit  to  agree  with  us  in  ye  Appointment  of  sev- 
eral needful  officers  in  this  Government,  This  House  de- 
sire and  insist.  That  ye  Election  of  ye  persons  not  yet 
agreed  upon  may  be  now  performed  according  to  ye 
privilege  of  ye  Charter  and  ye  Direction  of  ye  law, 
whereby  is  given  to  each  member  of  this  Assembly,  an 
equal  Vote  in  ye  Election,  excepting  only  ye  Govr.  and 
in  his  Absence  to  ye  Deputy  Govr.,  a  double  vote  when 
an  Equivote  shall  happen."^  The  Upper  House  would 
not  agree  to  this  but  voted  to  "consent  to  have  it  con- 
sidered in  a  Conference  of  both  Houses,  concluding  that 
it  will  be  found  inconsistent  with  the  Charter."^ 

This  appeal  to  the  Charter  by  both  houses  is  charac- 
teristic,  but  hardly  convincing.     The  Charter  did  not 

'  A  number  of  vacancies  occurred  as  a  result  of  the  change  in  the  manner 
of  choosing  officials  from  plurality  to  majority  vote  in  1742.  Col.  Rec, 
VIII,  453. 

«  MS.  Rec.  Civil  Olficers,  I,  84. 

'  Ibid.,  I,   145. 

*  Ibid.,  I,   162. 


ORGANS   OF   LEGISLATION   AND   ADMINISTRATION.  19 

contemplate  the  separation  of  the  legislature  into  two 
houses.  This  had  been  done  by  simple  legislative  action 
in  direct  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  Charter.  If  the 
legislature  could  effect  such  a  fundamental  change,  it 
was  far-fetched  to  claim  that  it  was  beyond  the  com- 
petence of  the  legislature  to  alter  a  mere  formal  procedure 
in  elections. 

For  a  number  of  years,  at  each  session  of  the  General 
Court,  the  question  recurred,  and  threatened  to  seriously 
interfere  with  the  governmental  machinery.^  Finally,  in 
1723  a  compromise  was  reached  so  far  as  it  concerned  the 
choice  of  judges  and  justices.  Either  House  could  pre- 
pare a  list  of  names,  which  was  submitted  to  the  other 
House.  The  latter  could  strike  out  such  names  as  it  saw 
fit,  and  add  new  ones,  when  the  list  was  returned  to  the 
House  in  which  it  originated,  and  the  process  continued 
until  a  sufficient  number  of  names  were  agreed  upon  by 
both  Houses. 2  In  principle,  this  was  a  victory  for  the 
Upper  House.  The  same  year,  however,  the  whole  ques- 
tion arose  again  upon  the  choice  of  a  successor  to  Deputy 
Governor  Gold,  who  had  died  in  office.  The  Lower  House 
desired  that  the  two  Houses  meet  in  a  joint  convention, 
but  this  was  refused  by  the  Upper  House.  After  some 
discussion  the  Lower  House  gave  way,  and  Jos.  Talcott 
was  chosen  Deputy  Governor  by  the  two  Houses  voting 
separately.^  The  matter  became  more  serious  the  follow- 
ing year,  when  it  became  necessary  for  the  General  Court 

^Between  1717  and  1723  several  compromise  propositions  were  sug- 
gested by  the  Upper  House  but  they  were  all  negatived  by  the  Lower  House. 
MS.  Rec.  Civil  Officers,  I,  173,  175,  322,  327. 

^  Col.  Rec,  VI,  328. 

'  The  Upper  House  chose  Peter  Burr  who  was  negatived  by  the  Lower 
House  which  chose  Joseph  Talcott  who  was  negatived  by  the  Upper  House. 
The  Lower  House  then  chose  Jonathan  Law  but  the  Upper  House  dissented. 
The  following  day  the  Upper  House  chose  Joseph  Talcott  with  which  the 
Lower  House  concurred.     MS.  Rec.  Civil  Officers,  I,  440,  441,  442. 


20  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

to  choose  a  successor  to  Gov.  Saltonstall,  who  had  died 
suddenly  of  apoplexy.  On  this  occasion  the  Lower  House 
stood  firm  in  its  contention  that  the  election  should  be 
held  by  the  two  houses  in  joint  session,  and  the  Upper 
House  finally  agreed  that  "for  the  present  occasion  and 
for  no  other  purpose  or  intent  whatever, ' '  the  two  houses 
should  be  resolved  into  one  assembly,  and  the  election 
should  proceed  as  had  been  done  formerly  before  the 
separation  of  the  Houses.  The  joint  assembly  then 
chose  Joseph  Talcott,  Governor,^  The  difficulty  recurred 
with  almost  every  election.  The  Lower  House  would  re- 
iterate its  "Charter  Right  to  an  election"  by  a  joint  as- 
sembly, but  in  most,  if  not  all  cases,  the  Upper  House 
was  able  to  maintain  its  position.^  The  question  was  not 
finally  settled  during  the  colonial  era. 

The  powers  of  the  General  Court  which  have  been  out- 
lined were  not  altered  in  any  material  respect  by  the 
Royal  Charter.^  To  the  colonists,  the  Charter  was  a 
bulwark  of  defence  against  the  encroachments  of  the 
home  government  or  the  neighboring  colonies,  to  which 
they  were  quick  to  appeal  in  times  of  danger ;  but  it  was 
not  considered  as  a  limitation  upon  the  powers  of  the 
General  Court.  In  fact  the  Charter  was  no  more  "fun- 
damental" than  was  the  original  constitution.     Its  pro- 

» Col.  Rec,  VI,  483. 

*  In  1748  there  was  a  contest  over  the  choice  of  Deputy  Governor,  none 
of  the  candidates  receiving  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  Court  of 
Election.  After  considerable  bickering  Roger  Walcott  was  elected  by  the 
two  houses  voting  separately.      MS.  Rec.  Civil  Officers,  III,   140-143,   167. 

^  The  suggestion  made  by  Dr.  Baldwin  that  the  charter  contemplated 
making  the  CJeneral  Court  merelj^  an  electoral  and  advisory  body  and 
vesting  the  legislative  power  in  the  Governor  and  Assistants,  is  hardly 
tenable.  While  such  an  interpretation  might  be  drawn  from  the  careless 
wording  of  the  instrument,  no  such  meaning  was  placed  upon  it  by  the 
colonial  authorities  and  I  have  been  unable  to  discover  any  contemporary 
expression  by  Winthrop  or  the  other  colony  leaders  that  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  authorities  in  England.  Baldwin,  Three  Constitutions  of 
Connecticut,  Xew  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  V,  18G. 


ORGANS   OF   LEGISLATION   AND   ADMINISTRATION.  21 

visions  were  changed  or  modified  by  the  General  Court 
Vitibi.  the  same  freedom  as  had  been  done  with  the  "Fun- 
damental Orders."^ 

The  eighteenth  century  brought  no  material  change  in 
the  powers  of  the  General  Court.  In  fact  the  powers  of 
the  legislature  in  the  corporate  colonies  do  not  repre- 
sent a  gradual  development,  as  was  the  case  in  the 
provinces.  In  the  former  the  powers  of  the  legislative 
body  were  ample  from  the  beginning,  and  the  only  prob- 
lem which  confronted  the  colonists  was  how  to  maintain 
these  powers  intact  from  the  encroachment  of  the  home 
government.  In  this  Massachusetts  failed,  while  Con- 
necticut and  Rhode  Island,  by  more  judicious  use  of  their 
powers,  were  enabled  to  maintain  their  liberal  form  of 
government  throughout  the  colonial  period. 

During  the  first  three  years  of  the  colony's  history  no 
distinct  executive  authority  appeared.  All  the  functions 
of  government,  executive  and  judicial  as  well  as  legis- 
lative, were  centred  in  the  Massachusetts  Commission 
and  in  the  Court  which  displaced  the  Commission.  In 
the  Fundamental  Orders  the  first  attempt  was  made  to 
differentiate  the  functions  of  government.  Here  it  was 
provided  that  there  should  be  a  Governor  chosen  each 
year  by  the  freemen  of  the  colony.^    Like  the  other  magis- 

*  Two  important  changes  in  the  charter  effected  by  the  General  Court 
have  already  been  noted,  namely,  the  separation  of  the  legislature  into  two 
houses  and  the  adoption  of  proxy  voting.  Professor  Bryce  says  that  the 
colonists  became  accustomed  to  the  idea  of  an  instrument  superior  to  the 
legislature  and  the  laws  which  it  passed,  because  they  possessed  a  charter 
which  could  not  be  changed  by  the  legislature.  While  in  theory  the 
legislature  was  bound  by  the  provisions  of  the  charter,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
General  Court,  as  has  been  seen,  made  fundamental  changes  in  its  pro- 
visions, and  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
colonists,  at  least  in  Connecticut,  became  acquainted  with  the  essentials 
of  a  "  rigid  "  or  "  written  "  constitution  from  their  experience  with  a  royal 
charter.      Bryce,  op.  cit.,  I,  170. 

'  No  mention  is  made  of  a  Deputy  Governor,  but  the  Magistrate  receiv- 
ing the  greatest  number  of  votes  next  to  the  Governor  bore  the  title  and 
exercised  the  functions  of  a  Deputy  Governor. 


22  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

trates,  the  Governor  was  nominated  in  some  Court  before 
the  Court  of  Election.  He  must,  moreover,  be  a  member 
of  some  ** approved  congregation,"  and  have  been  for- 
merly a  magistrate.  No  person  could  be  chosen  Governor 
more  than  once  in  two  years.^  The  Charter  made  no 
change  in  the  organization  of  the  executive,  except  that  it 
specially  provided  for  a  Deputy  Governor,  as  well  as  a 
Governor. 

Upon  the  Governor  fell  the  duty  of  summoning  the  two 
regular  sessions  of  the  General  Court,  and  also,  with  the 
advice  of  a  major  part  of  the  magistrates,  at  such  other 
times  as  was  deemed  necessary.  While  the  Governor  could 
summon  the  General  Court,  he  could  not  prevent  its  meet- 
ing, neither  could  he  adjourn  or  dissolve  it,  without  its  con- 
sent. The  Governor,  or  Deputy  Governor,  presided  over 
the  sessions  of  the  General  Court.  He  could  give  ''lib- 
erty of  speech,"  put  all  questions  to  vote,  and  in  case  of 
a  tie  have  the  casting  vote.  He  did  not  have  the  power 
to  veto  any  act  of  the  General  Court.  The  Charter^  in 
theory,  slightly  increased  the  power  of  the  Governor  in 
legislation.  He  only,  or  in  his  absence  the  Deputy  Gov- 
ernor, could  summon  any  General  Court,  and  no  Court 
could  be  held  without  his  presence  or  that  of  the  Deputy 
Governor.  He  was  not  given  a  casting  vote  in  case  of 
a  tie,  but  this  power  seems  soon  to  have  been  reestab- 
lished.^ The  Charter  failed  to  state,  as  did  the  constitu- 
tion, that  no  General  Court  could  be  adjourned  or  dis- 
solved without  its  own  consent.^     There  is  no  evidence, 

*  This  provision  was  another  expression  of  the  democratic  sentiments 
of  the  founders  of  Connecticut.  In  practice  the  restriction  was  of  little 
value.  While  in  force  there  was  a  tolerably  regular  succession  in  the 
offices  of  Governor  and  Deputy  Governor,  the  incumbents  merely  changing 
places  each  year.  In  1060  the  restriction  was  entirely  removed  by  striking 
out  this  clause  of  the  constitution.      Col.  Rec,  I,  346,  347. 

«  Code  of  1672. 

*  This  provision  reappeared  in  the  Code  of  1672.  ^ 


ORGANS   OF   LEGISLATION   AND   ADMINISTRATION.  23 

however,  that  the  Governors  subsequent  to  the  granting 
of  the  Charter,  exercised  any  greater  control  over  legis- 
lation than  had  those  under  the  constitution.  At  no  time 
during  the  colonial  period  could  the  Governor  be  con- 
sidered a  coordinate  branch  of  the  legislature.  He  was 
simply  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Court,  and,  after  the 
separation  of  the  legislature  into  two  houses,  of  the 
Upper  House. 

While  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Governor  communi- 
cated advice  to  the  General  Court  in  the  shape  of  a 
message  at  each  session,  this  method  was  not  infrequently 
employed.  Such  communications  were  not  materially 
different  from  similar  documents  at  the  present  day. 
Information  was  given  as  to  the  general  state  of  the 
colony,  communications  from  the  home  government  and 
the  neighboring  colonies  were  referred  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  Court,  and  advice  was  given  regarding  neces- 
sary legislation.^  At  times  the  message  was  referred  to 
a  committee  of  the  Court  which  reported  upon  the  recom- 
mendations.^ 

It  has  been  noted  that  the  General  Court  retained  most 
of  the  administrative  functions  of  government  in  its  own 
hands.  Here,  as  in  legislation,  the  Governor  did  little 
more  than  register  the  will  of  the  legislature.^ 

A  mere  enumeration  of  the  powers  of  the  Executive, 
however,  would  give  a  wrong  impression  of  the  actual 
influence  exerted  by  the  Governor,  as  a  part  of  the  gov- 

>  See  messages  of  Gov.  Fitz  John  Winthrop,  Mass.  Hist.  Colls.,  6th  Ser., 
Ill,  157,  184,  290,  and  of  Gov.  Talcott,  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  IV,  289. 
See  also  MS.  Rec.  Civil  Officers,  I,  97,  163,  286,  etc, 

«  MS.  Rec.  Civil  Officers,  I,  171. 

3  In  1721  Gov.  Saltonstall  claimed  that  according  to  the  charter  the 
Governor  should  nominate  all  officers  appointed  by  the  General  Court, 
but  he  agreed  to  submit  to  the  opinion  of  the  two  houses.  The  court 
decided  that  it  could  not  accept  the  views  of  the  Governor.  MS.  Rec.  Civil 
Officers,  1,  286,  288,  290. 


24  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

ernmental  macliinery.  ^Vhile  his  powers  in  the  abstract 
were  slight,  his  influence  was  unquestionably,  in  most 
instances,  extensive.  This  influence  depended  in  a  large 
measure  upon  the  personality  of  the  Executive  and  upon 
his  ability  to  maintain  friendly  relations  with  the  legis- 
lature and  direct  the  legislation  which  he  could  not  con- 
trol. In  most  cases  the  persons  chosen  to  the  office  of 
chief  magistrate,  fulfilled  these  requirements  admirably. 
While  the  term  of  office  was  nominally  one  year  it  came 
to  be  practically  a  permanent  tenure.^  Rarely  was  a 
I)erson  once  chosen  Governor  retired,  except  by  death 
or  some  other  infirmity.  Chosen  generally  from  among 
the  leading  families,^  respected  by  the  freemen  who 
elected  him,  there  is  abundant  evidence  in  the  records 
that  the  chief  magistrate  wielded  considerable  influence 
in  shaping  the  affairs  of  the  commonwealth. 

From  the  foundation  of  the  colony  the  Governor  or 
Deputy  Governor,  with  the  assistants,  had  met  together 
as  a  "Particular  Court,"  but  the  functions  of  this  body 
were  mainly  judicial.^  It  was  not  until  the  granting  of 
the  Charter  that  the  assistants  appear  distinctly  as  an 
advisory  administrative  body  to  the  Governor.  The 
Charter  provided  that  the  Governor  or  Deputy  Governor, 
and  the  assistants,  should  ''apply  themselves  to  take  care 
for  the  best  disposing  and  ordering  of  the  general  busi- 
ness and  affairs"  of  the  colony.     A  few  months  after 

1  After  1660  when  the  restriction  preventing  a  person  from  being  chosen 
Governor  more  than  once  in  two  years  was  removed,  there  are  but  three 
instances  in  which  a  person  having  been  chosen  Governor  was  not  reelected 
yearly  for  life. 

*  A  contemporary  authority  says, — "  In  all  their  elections  of  Governor, 
councellcrs,  representatives,  judges  and  other  public  officers,  by  custom 
they  generally  choose  the  most  worthy."      Douglass,  Summary,  II,  158. 

»  Col.  Rec,  I,  71,  81,  119,  etc.  The  Fundamental  Orders  stated  that 
the  Governor  and  Magistrates  should  "  administer  justice  according  to  the 
laws  here  established,  and  for  want  thereof  according  to  the  rule  of  the 
word  of  the  Word  of  God." 


ORGANS   OP   LEGISLATION   AND   ADMINISTRATION.  25 

the  receipt  of  the  Charter,  the  General  Court  constituted 
the  assistants  a  standing  council  *'to  act  in  emergt  oc- 
casions that  concerne  ye  welfare  of  this  colony."^  From 
the  fragmentary  records,  it  appears  that  the  Council  be- 
gan to  act  in  matters  of  importance.  By  its  order,  a  com- 
mittee was  dispatched  to  the  town  of  West  Chester  to 
settle  certain  disputed  questions.  Orders  were  sent  to 
towns  on  the  eastern  end  of  long  Island,  warning  them 
to  submit  to  the  authority  of  Connecticut,  and  a  rate  was 
ordered  to  be  levied  on  these  towns.  The  town  of  Wick- 
ford  was  named  by  order  of  the  Council.^  The  activity 
of  the  Council  was,  however,  cut  short  by  the  repeal,  two 
years  later,  of  the  act  under  which  it  was  constituted.' 

The  Council  reappeared  in  1675.^  To  the  Governor 
and  assistants  were  added  two  military  officers  and  two 
civilians.  The  powers  of  the  body  were  more  definitely 
stated.  They  were  to  have  ' '  as  full  power  as  the  Charter 
will  allow,"  to  act  in  "all  matters  and  things  emergent" 
provided  their  acts  were  not  inconsistent  with  the  Char- 
ter.^ The  order  constituting  the  Council  was  to  remain 
in  force  only  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Court,  at  which 
time  the  Council  was  again  constituted  with  certain 
changes  in  the  names  of  individuals  added,  and  without 
any  limitation  as  to  time.^  In  1678  all  names  of  private 
citizens  were  stricken  from  the  commission,  and  at  each 
session  of  the  General  Court  from  then  until  the  coming 
of  Andros  in  1687,  the  Governor  and  assistants  were  con- 
stituted a  council.^     The  General  Court  was  careful  to 

*  Col.  Rec,  I,  397.  The  assistants  appear  to  have  been  acting  as  a 
Council  before  this  act  was  passed.     Ibid.,  I,  398;  II,  331. 

«  Col.  Rec,  I,  406,  407,  424. 
»  Ibid.,  I,  440. 

♦  In  1673  there  was  created  a  Council  of  War  which  is  not  to  be  con- 
fused with  the  Governor's  Council. 

5  Col.  Rec,  II,  261. 

« Ibid.,  II,  270. 

'  The  quorum  of  the  Assistants  was  fixed  at  three.      Col.  Rec,  III,  15. 


26  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPOKATE    COLONY. 

restrict  the  powers  of  this  body.  In  1691  it  was  provided 
that  they  could  raise  no  money,  nor  make  any  alteration 
in  the  Charter,  and  to  these  restrictions  was  later  added 
the  provision  that  they  should  send  no  men  out  of  the 
colony,  except  in  cases  of  emergency.^  This  evident  jeal- 
ousy of  a  standing  council,  shown  by  the  General  Court 
reconstituting  it  at  each  session  and  specifying  its  powers 
was,  possibly,  a  reflection  of  the  controversy  over  a  simi- 
lar question  in  the  early  days  of  the  Massachusetts 
colony.^ 

Upon  the  resumption  of  government  under  the  Charter 
after  the  overthrow  of  Andros,  the  Council  reappeared. 
For  a  number  of  years,  at  each  session  of  the  Court,  spe- 
cial acts  constituting  such  a  body  were  passed.  At  times 
certain  deputies  or  freemen  were  added  to  the  assistants, 
and  on  one  occasion  the  Governor  was  empowered  to 
choose  his  own  Council.^  The  last  time  that  the  Council 
was  specifically  ''stated"  was  in  1719,  though  it  appears 
that  the  assistants  continued  to  meet  at  intervals,  as  a 
Council,  throughout  the  eighteenth  century. 

At  first  the  meetings  of  the  Council  were  frequent, 
often  once  a  week,  and  its  activity  included  the  receiv- 
ing and  naming  of  new  towns,  conferring  land  patents, 
granting  licenses  to  sell  liquor,  appointing  fast  days 
and  days  of  Thanksgiving,  receiving  and  answering  let- 
ters and  orders  from  the  authorities  in  England,  the 
colonial  agents  and  the  officials  of  the  neighboring  col- 
onies, issuing  military  orders,  and  ordering  the  payment 
of  public  debts.'*  On  at  least  one  occasion  the  Council 
chose  an  official  of  the  colony  to  fill  a  vacancy  caused  by 
death.  ^ 

1  Col.  Rec,  IV,  62,  489 ;  V,  32,  53. 

*  Osgood,  American  Colonies,  I,  178. 
»  Col.  Rec,  IV,  14,  399,  489;  V,  22. 

*  Col.  Rec,  I,  407,  411;  XV,  531  et  seq. 
» Ibid.,  XV,  558. 


ORGANS   OF  LEGISLATION   AND   ADMINISTRATION.  27 

The  Court  from  time  to  time  ordered  the  Council  to 
perform  certain  specified  acts.  Thus  they  were  required 
to  appoint  an  agent  of  the  colony  in  England,  to  attend 
to  ''laying  in  a  stock  of  pork,"  and  to  look  after  the 
*'Gospelizing"  of  the  Indians^  At  first,  it  was  customary 
for  the  General  Court  to  pass  upon  the  acts  of  the  Coun- 
cil,^ and,  in  one  instance  at  least,  its  action  was  disap- 
proved.^ During  the  greater  part  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, because  of  the  dearth  of  records,^  we  are  left  wholly 
in  the  dark  as  to  the  activity  of  the  Council.  The  fact, 
however,  that  in  the  records  of  the  General  Court  no  ref- 
erence is  made  to  the  body  for  such  a  long  period,  would 
incline  one  to  believe  that  it  had  ceased  to  be  an  important 
adjunct  of  the  governmental  machinery."* 

»Col.  Rec,  V,  325,  337;  V,  15. 

*  Col.  Rec,  IV,  202,  205,  222,  etc. 
'Ibid.,  IV,  284. 

*  There  is  no  Council  Journal  extant  between  the  years  1728  and  1770. 

'The  extant  Council  records  after  1770  are  of  little  interest  and  con- 
cern largely  the  ordering  of  the  payment  of  public  accounts.  Col.  Rec, 
XIII,  355,  412,  504. 


CHAPTER   11. 

Finance  and  Currency. 

It  is  proposed  under  this  heading  to  treat  financial 
history  in  its  broadest  sense.  Besides  an  account  of  the 
monetary  system,  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  outline  the 
principal  sources  of  colonial  revenue  and  expense,  with 
some  account  of  the  control  of  the  public  revenue.  From 
a  constitutional  standpoint,  the  consideration  of  these 
questions  is  not  as  important  in  the  corporate  colonies,  as 
in  the  royal  or  proprietary  provinces.  In  the  latter,  the 
question  of  the  control  of  the  purse,  was  the  most  fruit- 
ful source  of  conflict  between  the  democratic  and  prero- 
gative elements.  All  other  issues  were  in  a  measure  sub- 
ordinated to  the  money  question.  In  the  nature  of  things 
such  a  conflict  was  not  possible  in  the  corporate  colonies. 
In  these  colonies  the  financial  question  is  of  interest 
rather  from  the  economic  or  social,  than  from  the  consti- 
tutional standpoint.  Its  consideration  shows  how  a  com- 
munity left  largely  to  its  own  resources,  having  little 
knowledge  of  the  science  of  government  and  less  of  the 
science  of  finance,  tried  to  adjust  revenue  to  expenditure, 
and  expenditure  to  revenue ;  how  it  attempted  in  an  hon- 
est but  crude  way  to  advance  its  material  prosperity  by 
experimenting  with  a  protective  tariff,  how  it  became  in- 
fatuated with  the  paper  money  craze,  and  tried  to  extri- 
cate itself  from  the  inevitable  disaster. 

Land  was  the  first  and  throughout  the  most  important 
basis  of  taxation.  Probably  it  was  due  to  the  fact  that 
land  had  little  or  no  selling  value  during  the  early  years 
of  the  colony's  history  that  it  was  assessed  not  according 

28 


FINANCE   AND    CURRENCY.  29 

to  its  selling  value,  but  according  to  some  rough  estimate 
of  its  probable  revenue.^  No  attempt  was  made  at  first 
to  classify  land  according  to  its  location  or  quality. 
With  the  increase  in  population  and  the  opening  up  of 
less  desirable  land,  the  inequality  of  the  old  method  be- 
came more  and  more  apparent.  It  was  not  however  imtil 
1676^  that  a  committee  appointed  for  the  purpose  sub- 
mitted a  report  which  was  adopted  by  the  General  Court, 
by  which  land  was  rated  according  to  its  use,  quality, 
locality  and  position.^  The  schedule  thus  established  was 
somewhat  modified  in  1712,  by  which  a  new  classification 
was  made  according  to  locality,  and  more  minute  differen- 
tiation in  the  quality  of  the  land.^  To  the  tax  upon  land 
was  early  added  a  general  property  tax.'^  This  tax  first 
fell  upon  property  that  was  incident  to  land,  such  as 
houses  and  cattle,  the  latter  being  rated  according  to  age.^ 
Gradually  the  scope  of  the  tax  was  widened  to  include  all 
** visible"  estate;  mills,  ships,  cranes,  wharves  and  ''mer- 
chantable goods"  were  levied  upon  according  to  their 
estimated  values.'^ 

^Thia  method  of  rating  land  according  to  estimated  revenue  continued 
through  the  colonial  era.  Jones,  Hist,  of  Taxation  in  Connecticut,  J.  E. 
V.  8.,  XIV,  354.  A  contemporary  authority  says  that  in  assessing  rates 
land  was  valued  at  seven  years  income.     Douglas,  Summary,  II,  177. 

^  In  New  Haven  as  early  as  1640  land  had  been  rated  according  to  its 
location.     N.  H.  Col.  Rec,  I,  43. 

'Meadow  lands  were  rated  at  from  55s.  to  20s.  per  acre,  the  best  being 
in  Wethersfield ;  home  lots  from  40s.  to  15s.  per  acre,  Hartford  and 
Wethersfield  being  the  highest;  improved  uplands  used  for  tillage  25s.  to 
8s.  per  acre,  the  uplands  of  Hartford  south  side  being  the  best;  mowing 
and  pasture  land  at  from  20s.  to  10s.  per  acre;  all  other  "impropriated" 
land  at  Is.  per  acre.     Col.  Rec,  II,  294. 

*  Col.  Rec,  V,  334. 

"  In  1640  Mr.  Allen  was  required  to  pay  a  tax  on  his  land  and  "  all 
stocke  as  is  resident  or  usually  imployed  in  and  thereupon."  Col.  Rec, 
I,  53. 

•Col.  Rec,  I,  549. 

''Ibid.,  I,  548.  Property  exempted  from  such  taxation  included:  (1) 
Cattle  under  one  year  of  age,    (2)    hay  and  corn  in  the  "  husbandman's 


30  CONNECTICUT    AS    A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

The  Poll  tax  early  became  a  feature  of  colonial  taxa- 
tion.^ In  the  code  of  1650  all  male  persons  above  16  years 
of  age,  were  taxed  2s.  6d.  "by  the  head."  The  follow- 
ing year  the  tax  was  reduced  to  ISd.^  Under  Andros 
in  was  raised  to  Is.  8d.,  but  later  reduced  to  18d.^  In 
1737  the  manner  of  expressing  the  tax  was  changed. 
Each  person  was  placed  in  the  list  at  18  pounds  for  his 
poll.  A  tax  of  Id.  in  the  pound,  returning  the  same 
amount  as  before.^  Exemptions  of  particular  individuals 
or  classes  were  made  from  time  to  time  by  the  Greneral 
Court.'^ 

The  Connecticut  lawmakers,  and  a  large  portion  of 
these  doubtless  were  land  owners,  with  a  desire  to  lessen 
the  burden  of  taxation  on  land  and  property,  early 
turned  their  attention  to  such  persons  "who  by  the  ad- 
vantage of  their  Artes  and  Trades"  were  able  to  bear 
some  part  of  the  colony  expenses.  In  the  code  of  1650 
a  faculty  or  income  tax  first  appears.^  Here  it  was  pro- 
vided that  "Butchers,  Bakers,  Bruers,  Victuallers, 
Smiths,  Carpenters,  Taylors,  Shoemakers,  Joiners,  Bar- 
hand,"  (3)  vessels  owned  in  the  colony  employed  in  whale  or  cod  fishing 
four  months  of  the  year,  (4)  all  estates  used  for  ecclesiastical,  educational 
or  charitable  purposes,  (5)  all  houses  and  barns  except  warehouses,  (6) 
each  trooping  horse.  Col.  Kec,  I,  433,  549;  VIII,  133;  XIII,  3G5  Jones, 
op.  cit.,  22. 

^  The  poll  tax  first  appeared  in  Massachusetts  in  1646.  Mass.  Col.  Rec, 
11,   173. 

^Col.  Rec,  I,  229. 

'  Ihid.,  Ill,  406. 

« Ihid.,  VIII,  133. 

^  These  included  Magistrates,  ministers,  elders,  the  rector  of  Yale 
College,  and  such  persons  as  were  disabled  by  "  sickness,  lameness  or  other 
infirmity."  To  these  were  added  from  time  to  time  particular  persons 
who  had  suffered  some  misfortune,  as  loss  by  fire.  Col.  Rec,  I,  548;  III, 
215;  VIII,  133. 

"  In  1649  New  Haven  adopted  an  income  tax.  Both  the  Connecticut 
and  New  Haven  laws  were  almost  verbatim  reproductions  of  an  earlier 
Massachusetts  law.  N.  H.  Col.  Rec,  I,  494;  Conn.  Col.  Rec,  I,  549; 
Mass.  Col.  Rec,  II,  173. 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  31 

bers,  Millers  and  Masons,  with  all  other  manuall  persons 
and  Artists"  should  be  rated  "for  their  returns  and 
gains"  in  proportion,  as  other  persons  paid  for  the  pro- 
duce of  their  estates.  In  time  the  scope  of  the  tax  was 
increased.  In  1725  all  ''allowed"  attorneys  were  rated 
according  to  their  ' '  faculties, ' '  the  least  practitioners  at  50 
pounds  and  others  proportionately.^  In  1757  it  was  or- 
dered that  all  persons  "who  let  out  money  at  interest" 
should  be  rated  according  to  their  gains.  ^  Listers  had  used 
largely  their  own  discretion  in  fixing  the  amount  of  fac- 
ulty or  income  tax.  Such  a  system,  even  though  honestly 
administered,  was  bound  to  give  rise  to  dissatisfaction. 
To  remedy  these  evils,  the  General  Court  in  1771,  speci- 
fied in  detail  the  rates  of  income  taxes.^  In  this  form  the 
faculty  tax  continued  to  the  end  of  the  century  practically 
unchanged.  The  faculty  tax,  the  operation  of  which  has 
been  outlined,  was  at  best,  a  crude  attempt  to  shift  a  part 
of  the  burden  of  taxation  from  the  property  holding 
class.  It  became  in  many  instances  an  inequitable  and 
burdensome  tax.  It  was  not  an  income  tax  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  term.  No  attempt  was  made  to  ascertain 
the  actual  profits  or  earnings  of  particular  individuals, 
but  the  levy  was  made  on  certain  assumed  earnings.  * 
Exemptions  from,  and  abatement  of  taxes  were  a  com- 
mon feature.  Besides  personal  exemptions,  some  of  which 
have  been  noted,  it  was  customary  to  free  whole  towns 
from  colony  rates  for  a  greater  or  less  period  of  time. 
Specific  reasons  were  always  given  for  such  exemptions. 

1  Col.  Rec,  V,  525;  VIII,  133. 
«  Ihid.,  XI,  14. 

•  Traders  and  shop  keepers  were  to  be  rated  at  10  per  cent,  of  the 
cost  of  all  goods  sold  at  retail,  except  produce  and  manufactures  of  the 
colony.  Wholesale  traders,  artificers  and  tavern  keepers  were  rated  ac- 
cording to  their  annual  profits.      Col.  Rec,  XIII,  513. 

*  Seligman,  Colonial  and  State  Income  Taxes,  Pol.  Science  Quarterly, 
June,  1S95. 


32  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

Such  were  for  the  ''encouragement"  of  a  new  plantation, 
to  help  build  a  meeting  house,  or  school  houses,  for  the 
building  of  a  mill,  or  because  a  town  had  suffered  from 
fire,  Indian  ravages  or  other  calamities.  Poor  persons 
might  be  allowed  an  abatement  of  their  taxes  upon  the 
recommendation  of  the  select  men  of  the  town,  in  which 
case  the  amount  abated  was  paid  by  the  town.^ 

Excise  and  custom  duties  formed  a  less  important  part 
of  the  colony  revenue.  The  system  of  indirect  taxation, 
if  the  scattered  laws  dealing  with  the  subject  may  be 
called  a  system,  develoi^ed  late  in  the  colonial  period.  In 
general,  the  purpose  of  the  indirect  taxes  was  to  relieve 
the  burden  of  direct  taxation. 

As  early  as  1638  a  tax  had  been  laid  upon  the  beaver 
trade,  and  in  1646,  an  excise  on  wine.^  During  the  An- 
dros  regime,  the  laws  relating  to  excise  were  more  de- 
tailed, but  not  different  in  character,  and  throughout  the 
18th  century,  the  principle  of  the  excise  continued  with- 
out material  change.^  The  first  customs  duty  was  that 
levied  upon  wines  in  1654.^  In  1662  a  duty  was  laid  upon 
tobacco.  The  same  year  all  laws  imposing  duties  were 
repealed,  and  free  trade  was  established  throughout  the 
colony.  This  experiment,  however,  lasted  only  until  the 
next  session  of  the  Court,  when  the  old  duties  were  re- 
established.^ During  the  Andros  regime,  the  only  change 
affected  was  in  increasing  and  specifying  the  duties  on 

»Col.  Rec,  I,  185,  348;  II,  113;  III,  2,  240.      Ibid.,  XIII,  94. 

'Col.  Rec,  I,  20,  31,  146. 

Uhid.,  Ill,  409;  X,  408,  451;  XII,  290. 

*  Ibid.,  I,  255.  In  point  of  fact  the  first  customs  duty  was  an  export 
duty  on  goods  passing  down  the  Connecticut  River.  This  was,  however, 
merely  a  temporary  duty  levied  for  the  special  purpose  of  defraying  the 
expenses  of  the  purchase  of  Saybrook  from  Mr.  Fenwick.  The  attempt 
to  collect  this  duty  involved  the  colony  in  a  serious  dispute  with  Massa- 
chusetts. Col.  Rec,  1,  119,  120,  170;  II,  59.  Trumbull,  op.  cit.,  I,  184, 
194,  508;  Palfrey,  Hist,  of  New  England,  II,  240,  242. 

"   Col.  Rec,  I,  380,  391,  395. 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  33 

liquors.*  In  1696  the  Court  ordered  that  all  i-oreigners 
bringing  goods  into  the  colony  to  sell,  should  pay  a  duty 
of  2  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  goods,  which  was  changed 
two  years  later  to  12^8.  on  100  pounds '  worth  of  goods  ^ 
At  the  same  time  foreigners  were  interpreted  to  mean 
all  those  who  were  not  inhabitants  of  the  colony.  This 
law  might  be  considered  as  an  embryo  form  of  the  pro- 
tective tariff.  It  was  probably,  however  an  attempt  to 
place  non-residents  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  inhabi- 
tants who  were  required  to  pay  the  faculty  or  income 
tax  on  merchandise  sold  in  the  colony.^  In  1714  a  heavy 
export  duty  was  laid  on  barrel,  pipe,  and  hogshead  staves, 
exported  to  any  of  the  New  England  colonies.  New  York 
or  New  Jersey.  The  stated  objects  of  this  act  were  two- 
fold: (1)  To  preserve  the  timber  of  the  colony,  and  (2) 
to  encourage  direct  exportation  from  the  colony  to  the 
West  Indies.*  In  1735  a  duty  of  16d.  per  gallon  was  laid 
on  rum  imported  in  vessels  not  owned  in  the  colony,  and 
8d.  by  those  owned  in  the  colony,  but  this  act  was  repealed 
the  same  year.^  In  1747  the  Court  imposed  a  duty  of  5  per 
cent,  on  goods  imported  from  the  neighboring  colonies, 
and  if  by  non-resident  importers  7|  per  cent.,  while  to 
encourage  direct  importation  from  England  and  Ireland, 
a  bounty  of  5  per  cent,  was  granted,  but  the  following 
year  the  act  was  repealed.^     In  1757  the  General  Court 

>  Ibid.,  IV,  249. 

*Ibid.,  IV,  167,  251. 

»  In  1713  an  act  passed  the  upper  house  of  the  legislature  placing  a 
duty  of  5  per  cent,  on  all  goods  brought  into  the  colony  by  non-residents. 
This  was  negatived  in  the  lower  house.  Journal  of  the  upper  and  lower 
houses,  October,  1713. 

*  Col.  Rec,  V,  434.  The  following  year  similar  duties  were  laid  on 
planks,  ship  timber  and  boards.  In  1747  the  duties  on  these  articles  were 
increased.      Ibid.,  V,  499;  IX,  286. 

'i  Ibid.,  VII,  565;  VIII,  7. 

6  Ibid.,  IX,  285,  393.  There  were  excepted  from  this  tax  slit-iron,  nails, 
salt,  steel,  beaver,  leather,  deer-skin,  dry  and  pickled  fish,  train  oil,  whale 
bone,  rice,  tar,  turpentine,  window-glass  and  lumber. 


34  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

once  moT-e  imjwsed  a  duty  of  5  per  cent,  on  merchandise 
brought  into  the  colony  either  from  the  neighboring  col- 
onies or  abroad.  Whether  this  act  was  repealed  or  not, 
does  not  appear,  but  in  1768  another  act  similar  in  all 
respects,  save  in  the  number  of  articles  excepted  from 
the  law,  was  passed.  This  law,  however,  lasted  but  two 
years,  the  colony  agent  having  written  to  Gov.  Trumbull, 
that  it  had  given  great  offense  to  England.^  Amidst  all 
this  indecision  and  more  or  less  haphazard  legislation 
relating  to  revenue,  one  or  two  things  seem  to  be  toler- 
ably clear.  The  colony  officials  in  an  honest  effort  to 
stimulate  the  commerce  and  trade  of  the  colony,  sought  in 
a  crude  manner  to  exclude  the  products  of  the  neighbor- 
ing colonies,  and  to  an  extent,  those  of  the  mother  coun- 
try, but  none  of  the  laws  enacted  for  the  purpose  remained 
in  force  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time  to  prove  the  truth 
or  fallacy  of  the  principle  involved.  The  evident  caution 
shown  by  the  authorities  in  dealing  with  the  subject  was 
probably  due  not  to  any  fear  of  "monkeying  with  the 
tariff  buzz-saw,"  but  to  them,  the  more  conscious  fear 
of  interference  by  the  authorities  in  England. 

Another  form  of  indirect  taxation  which  api^eared 
during  the  colonial  period,  was  tonnage  duties.  During 
the  Andros  regime,  a  tonnage  duty  of  12d.,  or  a  pound  of 
powder,  per  ton  was  levied  on  all  vessels  not  owned  in 
New  England.^  This  act,  somewhat  modified,  remained 
in  force  after  the  resumption  of  government  under  the 
Charter.  In  1744  a  tonnage  duty  was  levied  to  supply 
powder  for  the  fort  at  New  London,  in  1757  a  similar  duty 
to  support  a  colony  war  vessel,  and  in  1760  for  erecting 
and  maintaining  a  lighthouse  at  New  London.'^ 

'Col.  Rec,  IX,  285;  XI,  10;  XIII,  72,  299;  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  5th 
Series,  IX,  .387. 

=  Col.  Rec,  III,  410. 

^  Ibid.,  IX,  75;  XI,  10,  469. 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  35 

Finally,  of  the  minor  sources  of  revenue,  a  word  might 
be  said.  Fines,  which  especially  during  the  early  years  of 
the  colony's  history,  were  imposed  for  a  variety  of  of- 
fenses. There  were  fines  for  absence  from  trainings,  de- 
fault of  arms  and  ammunition,  immoderate  drinking,  sell- 
ing arms  and  ammunition  to  the  natives,  for  bachelors  who 
kept  house  without  consent  of  the  authorities,  for  profanity 
and  contempt  of  authority.^  An  almost  negligible  revenue 
was  obtained  during  the  early  years  from  tribute  exacted 
from  the  Indians,  for  damage  done  by  them.^  During 
the  eighteenth  century,  the  sale  of  public  lands  added 
some  income  to  the  colony  treasury.^ 

At  the  head  of  the  administrative  machinery  for  gath- 
ering colonial  revenue  was  the  treasurer.  By  him  the 
writs  were  issued  to  the  collectors  in  the  different  towns.* 
The  constable  early  became  the  chief  collecting  officer  in  the 
towns.  ^  Prior  to  1650  when  a  tax  was  to  be  levied  the  Gen- 
eral Court  fixed  upon  the  sum  necessary  to  be  raised  and 
this  was  proportioned  among  the  towns  ^  by  a  committee 
composed  of  an  equal  number  of  persons  from  each  town. 
This  simple  system  was  soon  found  to  have  its  disad- 
vantages. Granting  that  an  honest  effort  was  made  to 
apportion  the  tax  equitably,  only  a  crude  estimate  of  the 
relative  ability  of  each  town  could  be  made.  With  the 
increase  of  population,  and  the  formation  of  new  towns, 
such  a  system  was  bound  to  become  inequitable,  if  not 
positively  unjust.  To  remedy  these  evils  a  system  already 
in  practice  in  Massachusetts  was  adopted.  This  was 
the  principle  of  the  Grand  List.  In  each  town  were 
chosen  three  or  four  men  as  listers.     These  listers  were 

1  Col.  Rec,  I,  29,  49,  50,  etc.;  II,  119,  257,  etc. 

«  lUd.,  I,  52,  303,  316. 

8  Ihid.,  VIII,  135. 

*  Ihid.,  I,  12. 

»  Ihid.,  1,  550. 

6  Ihid.,  I,  25. 


36  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    COEPOEATE    COLONY. 

required  to  prepare  a  list  of  all  males  over  16  years  of 
age,  with  a  true  estimation  of  their  estates,  both  real  and 
personal.  At  a  specified  time,  one  of  the  listers  (later 
a  deputy  of  the  General  Court)  from  each  town,  met  at 
Hartford  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  and  equalizing 
the  lists,  which  were  then  returned  to  the  towns  for  assess- 
ment.^ Upon  the  list  prepared  in  the  manner  indicated, 
was  levied  the  country  rate.  This  assumed  the  form  of 
a  certain  percentage  of  the  list.  For  a  number  of  years 
the  usual  per  cent,  was  Id.  on  the  pound.  With  the  slow 
growth  of  the  Grand  List,  the  amount  returned  from 
such  a  tax  was  a  tolerably  fixed  quantity.  In  time  this 
amount  became  known  as  ''a  rate"  or  '^a  whole  rate," 
and  when  a  greater  or  less  amount  was  required  for  pub- 
lic expense,  a  multiple  or  a  fraction  of  the  "rate"  was 
levied.^ 

Great  care  was  taken  by  the  colonial  authorities  to 
have  all  persons  bear  their  just  share  of  the  public 
expense.  Any  persons  who  failed  to  hand  in  a  correct 
list  of  his  estate  was  rated  "will  and  doom,"  that  is,  at 
the  discretion  of  the  listers.^  Later  (1703)  was  intro- 
duced the  custom  of  assessing  all  estate  omitted  from  the 
list  at  four  times  its  value.  From  this  came  the  "four- 
fold" assessments  which  are  met  with  frequently  in  the 
records.'*  Failure  to  pay  rates  within  a  specified  time 
made  the  property  of  the  individual  liable  to  be  levied 
upon  by  process  of  distress,  beginning  with  the  seizure 
of  merchandise  or  cattle,  then  lands  and  houses,  and 
finally  the  person  of  the  individual.^    Then  there  appeared 

'  Col.  Rec,  I,  548. 

*  Thus  in  1652  a  half  a  rate  was  ordered,  and  in  1653  a  rate  and  a 
half.  Col.  Rec,  I,  2.36,  249.  Later,  however,  the  custom  of  reduplicating 
the  rate  was  dropped,  and  the  per  cent,  was  raised  or  lowered  as  occasion 
required.     Col.  Rec,  I,  285,  307,  324,  etc 

» Ibid.,  IV,  6. 

♦  Col.  Rec,  IV.,  439. 

6  Ibid.,  I,  550;  Jones,  op.  cit.,  3S8. 


FINANCE   AND   CURBENCY.  37 

the  Inspector  of  Lists.  The  functions  of  this  officer  were 
to  verify  and  correct  the  work  of  the  listers.^  Constables 
were  required  to  return  the  colony  rate  to  the  Treasurer 
by  the  last  day  of  June  each  year.'^  In  order  that  the 
constables  might  reach  non-resident  land  holders,  they 
were  given  (1719)  the  same  jurisdiction  throughout  the 
colony  as  they  exercised  in  their  own  towns'.  The  con- 
stables were  held  to  strict  accountability  for  collection  of 
all  rates,  and  in  case  of  deficiency,  their  property  was 
liable  to  be  levied  upon  by  the  Treasurer,  who  in  turn  was 
responsible  to  the  General  Court.* 

The  excise  and  customs  duties  were  collected  by  spe- 
cial officials.  In  1659  the  Court  appointed  '^  Custom 
Masters"  in  nine  towns.^  In  1698  the  Governor  was 
authorized  to  appoint  one  collector  of  excise  in  each 
county.  The  power  of  appointment  was  later  transferred 
to  the  County  Courts,  and  then  to  the  towns.^  In  1747 
the  Court  authorized  the  Governor  to  appoint  a  collector 
of  customs  in  each  county,  and  later  this  power  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  towns,  and  the  number  increased  to  one 
from  each  town.^  In  1776  the  Governor  was  made  head 
naval  officer,  with  power  to  appoint  under  collectors  in 
certain  specified  towns.^ 

Provisions  for  defence,  formed  perhaps  the  largest 
single  item  of  expense.  Under  this  heading  were  in- 
cluded, salaries  and  pensions  of  soldiers,  military  sup- 

>  Ibid.,  V,  81,  440,  503.  Special  inspectors  were  at  first  chosen,  then 
the  work  was  assigned  to  the  deputies  of  the  General  Court,  and  finally 
the  office  was  merged  with  that  of  lister.     Jones,  op.  cit.,  370. 

2  Col.  Rec,  I,  113,  551. 

'  Ibid.,  VI,  154. 

« Ibid.,  I,  551. 

5  Ibid.,  I,  332.  In  1665  the  treasurer  with  the  deputies  from  Hartford 
were  authorized  to  farm  out  the  customs.     Ibid.,  II,  15. 

e  Ibid.,  IV,  262;  V.  56;  VII,  562. 

■•Ibid.,  IX,  283;  XI,  11. 

8  Col.  Rec,  XV.  280. 


38  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    COEPORATE    COLONY. 

plies,  appropriations  for  the  building  and  repair  of  forts 
and  fortifications,  and  the  maintenance  of  armed  vessels 
for  coast  defence.  It  had  been  customary  from  the  first 
to  grant  specified  salaries  to  soldiers  and  officers  when  in 
active  service,  and  such  continued  to  be  the  practice 
during  the  whole  colonial  era.  The  General  Court  would 
usually  fix  the  rate  of  pay  at  the  beginning  of  each  expe- 
dition or  campaign.^  Besides  the  regular  salaries,  not 
infrequently  extra  compensation  in  the  shape  of  gratui- 
ties and  bounties  was  granted  to  the  soldiers.^  There  is 
no  record  of  any  general  pension  act  having  been  passed 
during  the  colonial  period,  but  a  considerable  number  of 
special  pension  acts  were  passed  for  the  relief  of  in- 
dividual soldiers  or  their  families.^  During  the  earlier 
years  of  the  colony's  history,  the  supply  of  arms  and 
ammunition  was  largely  a  charge  upon  the  localities. 
Enactments  requiring  the  possession  of  arms  and  ammu- 
nitions by  all  male  persons  able  to  bear  arms,  were  of  fre- 
quent occurrence.^  When,  however,  the  intercolonial 
wars  of  the  eighteenth  century  greatly  extended  the  scope 
and  expense  of  military  operations,  the  cost  of  equipping 
and  supplying  the  militia  became  a  more  and  more  im- 
portant item  of  colonial  expense.^ 

The  forts  and  fortifications  in  the  coast  and  frontier 
towns,  were  maintained  partly  by  local  taxation,  and 
partly  by  colonial  grants.*'     The  building  and  equipping 

^Col.  Rec,  I,  11,  15;  V,  80,  83,  93,  etc.;  IX,  93,  110,  etc.;  X,  317,  345, 
etc. 

-Ibid.,  X,  450,  495,  599;  XI,  94. 

^Ibid.,  XI,  37,  86,  110,  etc.      MS.  Rec.  War,  III,  134  et  seq. 

*Col.  Rec,  I,  3,  15;  IV,  18. 

^  There  was  a  constant  complaint  of  a  lack  of  arms  and  ammunition, 
and  appeals  were  made  to  the  home  government  for  aid.  MS.  Rec.  War, 
VI,  26,  76. 

'  The  principal  forts  were  at  Saybrook  and  New  London.  These  forts 
were  maintained  partly  by  the  tonnage  duty  and  partly  by  special  grants 
of  the  Court.      Col.  Rec,  19,  120.  400. 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  39 

of  armed  vessels  for  coast  defence,  was  an  expense  of 
minor  importance.^  Down  until  the  opening  of  Philip's 
War,  the  expenses  for  defence  were  comparatively  light,^ 
but  this  war,  followed  by  the  long  series  of  intercolonial 
wars  which  opened  with  the  last  decade  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  entailed  upon  the  colony  a  large  and  continuous 
expense  for  military  affairs.  Connecticut  was  favored  by 
her  geographical  position,  not  being  so  immediately  ex- 
posed to  the  attacks  of  the  French  and  Indians,  as  were 
her  neighboring  colonies  on  the  north  and  west,  but  she 
was  always  generous  in  supplying  men  and  money  for 
purposes  of  mutual  defence.^  The  absence  of  records 
makes  any  estimate  of  military  expenses  for  the  four 
intercolonial  wars,  hardly  more  than  a  guess,^  but  there 
is  no  doubt  they  were  a  heavy  burden,  and  offered  an 
excuse,  if  not  a  justification,  for  Connecticut's  disastrous 
experiments  with  paper  currency. 

Next  to  the  expenditure  for  military  purposes,  prob- 
ably the  most  important  item  of  expense  was  in  providing 
for  the  salaries  and  expenses  of  the  colonial  officials. 
Salaries  at  first  were  irregularly  paid,  and  generally 
small  in  amount.^    The  Governor's  salary  which  in  1700 

I  See  chapter  on  military  aflfairs. 

»  The  highest  rate  up  to  that  time  was  2V2d.  in  the  pound,  but  as  a 
result  of  that  war  the  taxes  rapidly  increased.  In  1675  they  had  risen 
to  12d.  in  the  pound  and  in  1678  to  18d.  in  the  pound.  Col.  Rec,  II,  269, 
292,  401. 

'  During  part  of  the  first  intercolonial  war  from  1688  to  1696  Connecti- 
cut expended  7759  pounds  14s.  9d.  in  assisting  the  neighboring  colonies. 
Col.  Rec,  IV,  191  note;  MS.  Rec.  Foreign  Correspondence,  II,  60;  War,  III, 
10a,  10b.  During  three  years  of  the  second  intercolonial  war  Connecticut 
expended  about  18,000  pounds  in  the  defence  of  the  Massachusetts  towns. 
MS.  Rec.  War,  II,  67a,  67b. 

*  Trumbull  estimates  the  expenses  of  Connecticut  in  the  first  inter- 
colonial war  at  more  than  12,000  pounds,  and  in  the  last  intercolonial  war, 
after  deducting  parliamentary  grants,  at  400,000  pounds.  Trumbull,  op. 
cit.,  I,  397;  II,  455. 

*  In  1641  a  salary  was  first  paid  to  the  Governor.  It  consisted  of  160 
bu.  of  corn.      Col.  Rec,  1,  69.      At  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century 


40  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

was  140  pounds,  had  risen  to  250  ix)unds  in  1728;  300 
pounds  in  1730  and  350  pounds  in  1736.  Much  of  this  ap- 
parent increase,  however,  was  more  tlian  offset  by  the 
rapid  depreciation  of  the  bills  of  credit,  in  which  salaries 
were  paid.^  It  does  not  appear  from  the  records  that 
there  was  any  considerable  extension  of  the  salary  system 
during  the  eighteenth  century.  The  salaries,  particularly 
of  the  executive  officers,  were  granted  for  no  longer  period 
than  one  year,  and  later  semi-annually.- 

This  evident  fear  of  stated  salaries  was  probably  anal- 
ogous to  that  which  appeared  in  the  neighboring  colonies 
of  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  though  with  no  good 
reason  for  such  fear.  Throughout  the  colonial  history 
of  Connecticut  fees  formed  a  more  important  part  of  the 
income  of  officials,  than  did  salaries.  The  Secretary  and 
the  Magistrates,  were  especially  dependent  upon  fees.^ 
Besides  the  salaries  and  fees,  extra  compensation  in  the 
form   of   gratuities   or   pensions,   was   not   infrequently 

the  salaries  of  the  various  officials  were,  annually:  Governor  140  pounds, 
Deputy  Governor  50  pounds,  Secretary  10  pounds.  Sheriff  10  pounds, 
Speaker  of  the  House  30s.  for  each  session.  Clerk  of  the  General  Court 
50s.,  Treasurer  10  pounds  and  16  pounds  for  "  riding  the  circuit."  Col. 
Rec,  IV,  330. 

1  Gov.  Saltonstall  had  a  long  dispute  with  the  General  Court  concerning 
his  salary.  He  claimed  that  the  salary  of  200  pounds  was  granted  "  in 
or  as  money,"  and  that  he  should  not  suffer  because  of  the  depreciation 
in  the  bills  of  credit.  The  Court,  however,  did  not  see  fit  to  agree  with 
him.  Col.  Rec,  443  note.  In  1733  Gov.  Talcott  complained  to  the  General 
Court  of  his  inability  to  support  himself  on  the  salary  granted  to  him 
because  of  the  depreciation  in  the  currency;  and  the  Court  granted  him 
an  extra  100  pounds.  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  IV,  289.  MS.  Rec.  Civil 
Officers,  II,  216. 

*  After  1740  it  was  customary  to  grant  salaries  semi-annually  at  the 
two  stated  meetings  of  the  General  Court. 

*  The  secretary,  for  example,  received  2s.  6d.  for  each  copy  of  public 
orders  sent  to  the  towns;  Is.  for  each  entry  of  public  laws  and  orders; 
2s.  for  affixing  the  public  seal  to  documents,  or  Is.  if  to  public  orders;  Is. 
for  writing  eacli  military  commission.  Is.  6d.  for  each  justice's  commission; 
and  3s.  for  each  petition  to  the  General  Court.  Col.  Rec,  IV,  313.  For 
a  detailed  list  of  the  fees  of  the  various  officials  see  Col.  Rec,  IX,  287  et  seq. 


FINANCE   AND   CUERENCY.  41 

granted  to  colony  officials  and  other  persons  for  some 
special  work  performed  for  the  colony.^  Pensions  took 
the  form  of  exemption  from  taxation  for  a  given  period, 
or  for  life,  or  freedom  from  rates  combined  with  a  grant 
of  money.^  The  increased  activity  during  the  eighteenth 
century  of  the  authorities  in  England  in  relation  to  colo- 
nial affairs,  and  the  frequent  attacks  which  were  made 
upon  the  charter  of  Connecticut,  necessitated  the  almost 
continuous  employment  of  a  colonial  agent  in  England, 
and  the  payment  of  his  salary  and  expenses  was  an  item 
of  some  importance  in  the  colony's  expenses.  The  money 
appropriated  for  these  purposes,  was  given  with  no  very 
good  grace,  and  the  General  Court  jealously  watched  the 
use  to  which  it  was  put.^ 

Although  the  provisions  for  education  were  a  charge 
upon  the  towns,  there  are  numerous  instances  of  grants 
made  by  the  General  Court,  for  the  support  of  schools. 
This  was  especially  the  case  in  providing  for  the  support 
of  Yale  College.^ 

A  minor  expense  was  incurred  by  the  colony  in  working 
out  the  details  of  its  policy  towards  the  natives.  Before 
the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  Indians  within 
the  borders  of  Connecticut  had  ceased  to  be  a  menace  to 
the  white  settlers.     On  the  other  hand,  the  natives  needed 

'  Col.  Rec,  TX,  260;  XI,  55,  172,  etc.,  MS.  Rec.  Finance  and  Currency, 
I,  48.  Such  items  as  the  following  are  not  uncommon.  The  Court  allowed 
Dr.  Carrington  9s.  "  for  medicine  given  to  a  sick  man  at  New  Haven " 
and  to  Serjt.  John  Ball  15s.  "  for  dieting  of  him  for  three  weeks."  Col. 
Rec,  IV,  401. 

*    Col.  Rec,  IV,  409,  530,  etc.;  V,  177,  349,  etc 

3  Col.  Rec,  V,  413,  414,  523,  etc  MS.  Rec  Finance  and  Currency,  III, 
38,  50,  270,  etc;  II,  168. 

«  Col.  Rec,  II,  176,  312;  IV,  97;  V,  353,  529,  etc  In  1733  the  Court 
appropriated  the  money  received  from  the  sale  of  the  seven  townships  in 
the  western  lands  for  the  support  of  schools,  and  in  1766  the  money  re- 
ceived from  the  excise  on  wines  and  liquors  was  similarly  given.  Col.  Rec, 
VII,  459;  XII,  463. 


42  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPOKATE    COLONY. 

to  be  protected  from  unscrupulous  whites.  The  General 
Court  appointed  overseers  for  the  different  tribes,  to 
look  after  their  interests,  and  appropriated  money  for 
educating  the  natives  and  instructing  them  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Christian  religion.^ 

In  defraying  these  various  expenses,  the  General  Court 
passed  special  appropriations  for  each  item  as  it  was 
presented.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  attempt  was 
made  to  classify  expenses,  and  pass  general  appropria- 
tion bills. 

It  had  been  the  practice  from  the  first,  for  the  General 
Court  to  keep  a  close  supervision  over  the  collection  and 
expenditure  of  the  public  revenue.  This  was  done  gen- 
erally by  a  committee  appointed  by  the  General  Court, 
to  audit  the  accounts  of  the  treasurer.^  During  the 
fourth  intercolonial  war,  a  special  auditing  committee 
known  as  the  Committee  of  the  Pay  Table,  was  appointed 
to  adjust  the  accounts  of  the  treasurer  for  all  expenses  of 
a  military  character.^ 

During  the  earlier  years  of  the  colony's  history,  the 
settlers  were  practically  unsuj)plied  with  metallic  cur- 
rency. To  supply  this  deficiency  and  remove  the  incon- 
veniences of  barter,  resort  was  early  made  to  wampum 
and  merchandise  as  a  medium  of  exchange.  Wampum  or 
'^peage"  consisted  of  small  spiral  shells,  about  an  eighth 
of  an  inch  in  diameter,  and  arranged  on  strings  and 
fibres.  The  shells  were  either  black  or  white,  the  value 
of  the  former  being  generally  twice  that  of  the  latter.^ 

1  Col.  Rec,  VI,  188,  563;  VII,  102,  181,  242,  etc.  This  subject  will  be 
treated  more  fully  in  the  consideration  of  Indian  affairs. 

2  Col.  Rec,  I,  30,  68,  etc.;  Ill,  49,  72,  etc.;  VI,  19,  48,  etc. 

3  Col.  Rec,  X,  366. 

*  Weeden,  Economic  and  Social  Hist,  of  New  England,  I,  32.  Bronson, 
Hist,  of  Connecticut  Currency,  Xeic  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  I,  3.  The 
fathom  of  wampum  was  60d.  worth,  and  was  a  variable  amount  according 
as  the  value  of  the  beads  was  fixed  by  law.      If  it  was  six  beads  to  the 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  43 

Used  first  in  their  dealings  with  the  natives,  these  shells 
soon  became  a  recognized  currency  among  the  colonists, 
and  were  exchanged  for  merchandise,  labor  and  taxes. 
They  passed  at  rates  fixed  by  statute,  which  were  altered 
from  time  to  time  as  the  supply  varied.^  After  the  mid- 
dle of  the  seventeenth  century,  wampum  begins  to  dis- 
appear as  a  medium  of  exchange,  but  in  smaller  trans- 
actions, and  in  the  more  remote  settlements,  it  continued 
in  use  throughout  the  seventeenth  and  into  the  eighteenth 
century.^  In  the  more  important  business  transactions, 
and  in  the  payment  of  taxes,  merchandise  took  the  place 
of  specie.  The  articles  chosen  were  wheat,  rye,  oats, 
Indian  corn,  peas,  beef,  pork,  beaver,  etc.  The  prices  at 
which  these  articles  were  to  pass  were  fixed  from  time  to 
time  by  the  General  Court.  The  pajTuent  of  taxes  in 
merchandise,  necessitated  the  maintenance  of  a  colony 
magazine  or  store  house,  to  keep  the  products  in  until 
they  should  be  disposed  of.^  Throughout  the  seventeenth 
and  into  the  eighteenth  century  until  the  appearance  of 
paper  currency,  farm  products  continued  to  be  used  in  the 
payment  of  taxes,  and  for  the  exchange  of  commodities.* 

penny  then  three  hundred  and  sixty  beads  made  a  fathom.  Weeden, 
Indian  Money  as  a  Factor  in  New  England  Civilization,  J.  H.  U.  S.,  II, 
385. 

1  In  1637  the  rate  was  three  beads  to  the  penny,  in  1640  four  to  the 
penny,  and  in  1642  six  to  the  penny.      Col.  Rec,  I,  13,  61,  79. 

*  It  was  in  use  as  late  as  1704  and  possibly  later.  Bronson,  op.  cit.,  4. 
The  decline  of  wampum  as  a  circulating  medium  was  due  to  the  decreasing 
commercial  relations  of  the  natives  and  the  whites,  and  to  the  increase  in 
the  quantity  of  metallic  currency  which  found  its  way  into  the  colony, 
especially  from  the  West  Indies.     Weeden,  Economic  and  Social  Hist.,  I,  45. 

'In  1667  the  General  Court  proposed  to  "hire  a  chamber  for  keeping 
the  Country  Rate  in  the  respective  towns."      Col.  Rec,  II,  64. 

*  In  1710  the  General  Court  required  rates  to  be  paid  in  specie  or  bills 
of  credit,  but  in  1720,  and  again  in  1723  we  find  a  tax  levied  payable  in 
grain.  Upon  the  sinking  of  the  paper  currency  in  1757  it  was  found 
necessary  to  resort  to  commodities  once  more  in  the  payment  of  taxes. 
Col.  Rec,  V,  157;  VI,  223,  431;  XI,  9. 


44  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

Some  foreign  coin  found  its  way  into  the  colony,  and 
its  exchangeable  value  was  regulated  by  enactment  of 
the  General  Court.  ^  Most  of  these  foreign  coins  were 
worth  far  less  than  their  supposed  intrinsic  value,  as  a 
result  of  the  washing  and  paring  of  coins,  which  was  then 
so  common.^  To  the  foreign  coins  was  added  the  ''Pine 
Tree  Currency"  of  Massachusetts.^  It  is  uncertain  at 
what  time  the  ' '  Bay  Shillings ' '  became  common  currency 
in  Connecticut,  but  it  was  probably  somewhat  before  the 
end  of  the  seventeenth  century.'*  It  was  not  until  some 
time  after  they  had  become  generally  current  in  the 
colony,  that  they  were  ofiicially  recognized  by  the  General 
Court.  By  the  code  of  1702,  it  was  provided  that  they 
should  pass  current  at  the  rate  at  which  they  were 
stamped. 

The  appearance  of  New  England  and  foreign  coins, 
did  not  displace  ' '  country  pay  "  as  a  means  of  dis- 
charging debts  and  paying  taxes.  As  a  result,  several 
currencies  were  in  existence,  and  prices  of  commodities 
were  regulated  according  to  the  currency  offered  in  pay- 
ment. The  following  quotation  from  "The  Private 
Journal  of  Madam  Knight,  on  a  journey  from  Boston  to 
New  York,  in  the  year  1704,"  is  of  interest.  "They  (the 
people)  give  the  title  of  merchant  to  every  trader  who 
rate  their  goods  according  to  the  time  and  specie  (kind) 

1  In  1643  the  Court  ordered  that  "'good  rialls  of  |  and  reix  dollars" 
should  pass  at  5s.  Col.  Rec,  I,  86.  The  intrinsic  value  of  these  coins 
was  4s.  6d.  Bronson,  op.  cit.,  22;  Dewey,  Financial  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  20. 
In  1683  the  Court  ordered  that  "  for  the  future  all  pieces  of  eight  Mexicoe, 
pillar  and  Civill  pieces  "  should  pass  at  six  shillings  each,  and  "  all  good 
pieces  of  Perue  "  at  five  shillings.  Col.  Rec,  III,  119.  Mexico  pieces  of 
eight  were  worth  4s.  6%d.,  Seville  pieces  "  old  plate  "  4s.  6d.,  "  new  plate  " 
33.  TVad-)  and  Peru  pieces  4s.  5d.      Bronson,  op.  cit.,  26. 

2  Bronson,  22. 

'  The  Massachusetts   mint  was  established   in   1652.      Felt,   Historical 
Account  of  the  Mass  Currency,  31. 
*  Bronson,  op.  cit.,  19. 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  45 

they  pay  in,  viz:  pay,  monej^,  pay  as  money, ^  and  trust- 
ing (that  is  they  have  a  pay  price,  a  pay  as  money  price, 
and  a  trusting  price).  Pay  is  grain,  pork,  beef,  etc.,  at 
the  prices  set  by  the  General  Court  that  year;  money  is 
pieces  of  eight  ryals  or  Boston  or  Bay  Shillings  (as  they 
call  them)  or  good  hard  money  as  sometimes  silver  coin 
is  termed  by  them,  also  wampum,  (viz.  Indian  beads) 
which  serves  for  change.  Pay  as  money,  is  provisions  as 
aforesaid,  one  third  cheaper  than  as  the  Assembly  in 
General  Court  sets  it,  and  trust,  as  they  and  the  merchant 
agree  for  time.  Now  when  the  buyer  comes  to  ask  for 
a  commodity,  sometimes  before  the  merchant  answers 
that  he  has  it,  he  says,  'is  your  pay  ready!'  Perhaps 
the  chap  replies  yes.  'What  do  you  pay  in?'  says  the 
merchant.  The  buyer  having  answered,  the  price  is  set ; 
as,  suppose  he  wants  a  six  penny  knife;  in  pay,  it  is 
twelve  pence ;  in  pay  as  money,  eight  pence,  and  in  hard 
money,  its  own  price  (value)  six  pence.  "^ 

To  all  this  variety  of  currency  must  be  added  the  paper 
currency,  which  did  not  make  its  appearance  in  Con- 
necticut until  five  years  after  the  above  was  written. 

The  fluctuation  and  variation  in  the  value  of  foreign 
coins  at  different  times,  and  in  the  different  colonies, 
caused  great  inconveniences  in  trade. ^  To  remedy  this. 
Queen  Anne,  in  1704,  upon  recommendation  of  the  Board 
of  Trade,  issued  a  proclamation,  fixing  the  value  of  for- 
eign coins  then  current  in  the  colonies.  Iji  1707  the  proc- 
lamation was  passed  by  parliament,  and  a  penalty  of  six 

^  Bronson  is  of  the  opinion  that  "  pay  as  money  "  and  "  money  "  were 
one  and  the  same  thing. 

*  Quoted  in  Bronson,  22. 

»  The  Spanish  milled  dollar  which  took  the  place  of  the  eight-real  piece 
was  valued  in  New  England  and  Virginia  at  6s.,  in  New  York  and  North 
Carolina  at  8s.,  in  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland  at  7s.  6d.,  and 
in  South  Carolina  at  48.  6d.  Gouge,  A  Short  Hist,  of  Paper  Money  and 
Banking,  6. 


46  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

months  imprisonment  and  10  pomids  fine  was  to  be  in- 
flicted upon  any  one  receiving  or  paying  out  any  of  the 
coins,  at  a  higher  rate  than  that  fixed  in  the  statute.^ 
From  this  law  came  the  expression  ''Proclamation"  or 
''lawful"  money,  which  is  met  with  so  frequently  in  the 
records  during  the  eighteenth  century. 

In  1690  paper  currency  first  made  its  appearance  in 
the  American  colonies.^  It  was  in  that  year  introduced 
in  Massachusetts,  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  expedi- 
tion against  Canada.  Connecticut  did  not  "follow  the 
Bay  Horse  "  until  near  the  close  of  the  second  inter- 
colonial war. 

In  June,  1709,  the  General  Court,  then  in  session  at  New 
Haven,  enacted  the  following  law: 

"Forasmuch,  as  by  reason  of  the  great  scarcity  of 
money,  the  payment  of  the  public  debts,  and  charges  of 
this  government,  especially  in  the  intended  expedition  to 
Canada,  is  made  almost  impracticable;  for  remedy 
whereof,  be  it  enacted,  .  .  .  That  there  be  forthwith  im- 
printed, a  certain  number  of  bills  of  credit  of  this  Colony, 
in  suitable  form  from  two  shillings  to  five  pounds,  which 
in  the  whole  shall  amount  to  the  sum  of  eight  thousand 
pounds,  and  no  more;  which  bills  shall  be  indented  and 
stamped  with  such  stamps  as  the  Govemour  and  Council 
shall  direct,  and  be  signed  by  a  committee  appointed  by 
this  Court,  or  any  three  of  them,  and  of  tenor  following, 
that  is  to  say 

No.  (         )  20  s. 
This  indented  bill  of  20  shillings,  due  from  the  Colony  of 

1  Bronson,  op.  cit.,  26.     Statutes  at  Large,  6th  Anne,  Chap.  30. 

'  Felt,  op.  cit.,  49.  Traces  of  paper  currency  have  been  found  in  Massa- 
chusetts as  early  as  1646.  These  notes  were  probably  issued  by  private 
individuals.  Of  their  form  and  value  we  know  nothing.  Proceedings  of 
the  American  Antaquarian  Society,  April,  1866.  Weeden  credits  John 
Winthrop,  Jr.,  with  being  the  real  founder  of  paper  currency  in  America. 
Weeden,  Economic  and  Social  Hist.,  I,  317. 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  47 

Connecticut  in  New  England,  to  the  possessor  thereof, 
shall  be  in  value  equal  to  money,  and  shall  be  accordingly 
accepted  by  the  treasurer  and  receivers  subordinate  to 
him,  in  all  public  payments,  and  for  any  stock  at  any  time 
in  the  treasury.  Hartford,  July  the  twelfth ;  Anno  Domini 
1759.    By  order  of  the  General  Court. 

J.  C.  ' 

J.  H.  r  Committee. 
J.  E. 
And  so  mutatis  mutandis  for  a  greater  or  lesser  sum."^ 
For  some  reason  the  words  ''in  all  public  payments" 
were  omitted  in  the  first  issues  of  the  bills.  The  fol- 
lowing year  (1710)  the  General  Court,  probably  fearing 
that  the  omission  would  discourage  their  acceptance,  pro- 
vided that  the  bills  should  ''be  as  good  and  effectual  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  ...  as  they  would  have  been 
if  the  said  words  so  omitted  as  aforesaid,  had  been  in- 
serted fully,  and  at  large  in  the  said  bills.  "^  To  en- 
courage the  acceptance  of  the  bills,  they  were  accepted 
"in  all  public  payments"  (afterward  interpreted  by  the 
General  Court  to  mean  simply  pajTnent  of  taxes)  at  an 
advance  of  12d.  in  the  pound.^  8,000  pounds  were  ordered 
in  the  first  issue,  4,000  pounds  to  be  used  in  defraying 
the  indebtedness  of  the  colony,  and  4,000  pounds  held  for 
further  disposal.  As  a  fund  for  securing  and  redeeming 
the  bills,  a  rate  of  lOd.  in  the  pound  was  levied,  one  half 
to  be  paid  in  1710,  and  the  other  half  in  1711.  Before  a 
year  had  passed  after  the  first  issue,  there  was  again  a 
"great  scarcity  of  money,"  and  the  Court  ordered  11,000 

'Col.  Rec,  V,  111.  For  reprints  of  several  bills  of  credit  see  Memorial 
Hist,  of  Hartford  Co.,  I,  324,  325. 

'  Col.  Rec,  V,  157. 

*  Trumbull  states  that  "in  all  other  pajrments  (other  than  public  pay- 
ments) they  were  to  be  received  as  money."  If  by  this  he  means  that  the 
bills  were  made  legal  tender  he  was  mistaken.     Trumbull,  op.  cit.,  I,  474. 


48  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

pounds  more  of  the  Bills  of  Credit  to  be  issued,  and  as  a 
fund  for  redeeming  them,  a  rate  of  12,000  pounds  was 
levied  to  be  paid  **  within  the  term  of  6  years  .  .  .  and 
so  much  thereof  in  each  of  the  said  6  years, ' '  as  the  Gen- 
eral Court  should  order.^ 

From  this  time  on  for  a  number  of  years,  at  each  ses- 
sion of  the  General  Court,  a  greater  or  less  amount  of 
the  bills  were  issued,  and  old  bills  drawn  in  by  taxation 
reissued.^  Every  effort  was  made  by  the  General  Court 
to  encourage  the  circulation  of  the  bills.  Besides  placing 
a  premium  on  them  in  the  payment  of  taxes,  the  Court 
ordered  in  1709  that  all  salaries  of  officials  which  had 
formerly  been  paid  in  ^'country  pay"  should  be  reduced 
one  third  and  paid  in  the  bills  of  the  colony,  unless  ex- 
pressly stated  that  they  were  to  be  paid  othei^wise.^ 
Again  the  following  year  the  Court  ordered  that  all  rates 
for  drawing  in  the  bills  of  credit  should  be  paid  '^either 
in  bullion  or  at  the  rate  of  8  sh.  the  ounce,  troy,  or  in 
bills  of  public  credit,  created  as  aforesaid,  and  in  no 
other  manner."*  By  this  latter  act,  ''Country  Pay"  or 
commodities,  were  excluded  from  the  Treasury  in  the 
payment  of  faxes.  In  1713  the  General  Court  ordered  the 
imprinting  of  20,000  pounds  in  bills  of  credit  on  a  new 
plate,  to  be  exchanged  for  the  old  bills  then  outstanding, 
which  it  was  discovered  had  been  counterfeited.^    While 

1  Col.  Rec,  V,  127. 

i  Ibid.,  V,  182,  226,  228,  252,  etc.  During  the  first  intercolonial  war 
there  were  issued  in  all  34,000  pounds  in  bills  of  credit,  and  at  the  end 
of  the  war  there  were  still  outstanding  about  20,000  pounds.  Bronson, 
op.  cit.,  33.     Col.  Rec,  V,  378. 

»  Col.  Rec,  V,  128. 

*  Ibid.,  V,  157.  The  same  year,  however,  this  was  modified  to  read 
instead  of  bullion  "  money  as  it  shall  generally  pass  in  New  England." 
This  change  was  made,  probably,  because  it  was  found  that  rating  silver 
at  8s.  per  ounce  was  contrary  to  the  act  of  Parliament.  Bronson,  op.  cit., 
33;  Col.  Rec,  V,  166. 

5  Col.  Rec,  V,  378.  The  following  drastic  act  was  passed  for  the  punish- 
ment of  counterfeiters.      Any  person  convicted  should  have   his  right  ear 


FINANCE   AND   CTJBEENCY.  49 

this  issue  was  ordered  exclusively  for  changing  the  old 
bills,  the  Court,  from  year  to  year,  drew  upon  the  fund 
for  ordinary  expenses,  which  necessitated  more  issues  of 
the  new  bills,  when  the  old  ones  appeared  from  time  to 
time  at  the  treasury  for  redemption.  Between  1713  and 
1732,  46,000  pounds  in  bills  were  issued,  all  with  the  osten- 
sible purpose  of  sinking  the  old  bills,  but  of  this  amount, 
nearly  30,000  pounds  had  been  used  in  defraying  colony 
expenses.^ 

Owing  to  the  scarcity  of  small  change,  the  colony  bills 
had  been  halved  and  quartered,  and  the  parts  circulated 
at  a  proportionate  value.  To  prevent  this  mutilation  of 
the  bills,  the  General  Court  ordered  that  the  treasurer 
should  not  honor  any  quartered  bills.^  The  practice, 
however,  seems  to  have  continued.^ 

To  add  to  the  increasing  volume  of  paper  currency,  the 
bills  of  credit  of  the  neighboring  colonies,  found  their  way 
into  Connecticut.  In  1719  these  bills  received  official  rec- 
ognition from  the  General  Court,  when  it  was  provided 
that  the  ''Country  Rate"  should  be  paid  in  the  colony's 
bils  of  credit  at  an  advance  of  5  per  cent.,  or  in  the  true 
bills  of  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Rhode  Island  or  New 
Hampshire,  without  advance.^ 

It  has  been  noted  that  the  earlier  issues  of  the 
Connecticut    bills    of    credit,    were    not    made    a    legal 

cut  off,  be  branded  with  a  C  on  the  forehead,  committed  to  the  work  house 
for  life,  and  be  whipped  every  time  he  should  leave  it  without  permission, 
have  his  estate  forfeited  and  be  debarred  from  trading.      Col,  Rec,  VI,  4(57. 

^  Bronson,  op.  cit.,  36.  In  a  report  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  King 
in  1737,  it  was  stated  that  in  1731,  according  to  the  printed  Book  of  Acts 
sent  by  the  colony  to  the  Board,  it  appeared  that  there  were  outstanding 
48,994  pounds  4d.  in  Bills  of  Credit  from  which  no  fund  had  been  provided 
for  redemption.  I  can  find  no  justification  for  this  statement.  Talcott, 
Papers  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  V,  166  note. 

^  Col.  Rec,  VII,  39. 

'  Ibid.,  VIII,  34,  133. 

*  Ibid.,  VI,  145.  "  Country  Pay  "  appeared  again  this  year  in  the  pay- 
ment of  rates,  but  three  years  later  it  was  once  more  excluded. 


50  CONNECTICUT    AS    A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

tender.  In  1718,  however,  the  General  Court,  consid- 
ering that  for  want  of  a  proper  means  of  exchange,  the 
bills  had  obtained  a  very  general  currency  in  private 
trade  and  dealing,  and  to  encourage  their  further  use, 
ordered  that  after  November  1,  1718,  no  debtor  should 
have  execution  passed  on  his  estate  if  he  offered  to  pay 
his  debts  in  full  in  the  bills  of  credit,  except  in  contracts 
where  it  was  expressly  stated  that  pa^^nents  should  be 
made  in  silver  or  some  other  medium.^  This  was  an  in- 
genious way  of  accomplishing  by  indirection  what  the 
officials  evidently  feared  to  do  directly.  The  colonists 
wanted  to  obtain  all  the  supposed  benefits  from  the  paper 
currency,  but  still  hesitated  to  come  out  boldly  and  de- 
clare the  bills  a  full  legal  tender.  They  doubtless  felt  that 
they  were  pursuing  a  course  which  would  not  be  looked 
upon  favorably  in  England. 

New  schemes  were  continually  brought  forward  for 
increasing  the  supply  of  these  very  convenient  bills. 
There  was  a  constant  complaint  of  a  ''lack  of  a  proper 
means  of  exchange."  Massachusetts  in  1714,  and  Rhode 
Island  in  1715,  had  established  what  were  essentially 
colonial  land  books. ^  Bills  of  credit  of  the  colony  were 
loaned  to  private  individuals  on  mortgage  security,  and 
the  payment  of  annual  interest,  which  latter  was  used  to 
help  defray  the  colony  expenses.  It  was  not  long  before 
this  plan  found  favor  in  Connecticut.  In  1726  the  Lower 
House  of  the  Assembly  proposed  the  formation  of  a 
"bank"  similar  to  those  which  had  been  established  in 
the  neighboring  colonies,  but  the  proposition  was  rejected 
by  the  more  conservative  Upper  House.    Two  years  later 

'  Col.  Rec,  VI,  74.  The  law  was  made  retroactive  for  all  debts  con- 
tracted subsequent  to  July  12,  1709,  when  the  Bills  of  Credit  were  first 
issued.  The  act  was  to  remain  in  force  until  1727,  but  later  this  time 
was  extended  to  173.5.      Col.  Rec,  VII,  208. 

-  Arnold,  Hist,  of  Rhode  Island,  53,  50.      Felt,  op.  cit.,  67. 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  51 

the  Lower  House  again  considered  the  matter,  appointing 
a  committee  to  elaborate  a  scheme  for  raising  a  *'bank" 
of  100,000  pounds.  The  whole  matter,  however,  was 
blocked  in  the  Upper  House,  which  stated  that  it  did 
not  deem  it  wise  to  proceed  with  the  plan,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  complaints  were  then  pending  before  the  King 
in  Council,  concerning  the  issuance  of  bills  of  credit  by 
the  different  colonies.^ 

The  advocates  of  an  expanded  currency,  however,  ac- 
complished their  designs  in  another  direction.  In  1730 
there  was  formed  in  New  London  an  association  of  some 
sixty  merchants,  which  was  incorporated  under  the  name 
of  '  *  The  New  London  Society  United  for  Trade  and  Com- 
merce. "^  This  society,  in  imitation  of  the  colony,  soon 
began  to  issue  bills  of  credit.  These  bills  appear  to  have 
circulated  freely  as  currency.^  It  was  not  long,  however, 
before  the  colonial  authorities  took  notice  of  what  was 
being  done.  Gov.  Talcott  ordered  the  sheriff  of  Hartford 
County  to  summon  the  society  before  a  special  meeting 
of  the  legislature,  to  show  cause  why  they  should  not  be 
ordered  to  refund  to  the  possessors  of  their  bills  the  sums 
paid  for  them.*  The  General  Court  decided  that  the  So- 
ciety had  exceeded  its  powers  in  issuing  the  bills,  and 
its  charter  was  revoked.  A  law  was  then  passed  pro- 
hibiting any  similar  action  by  private  individuals,  or  as- 
sociations in  the  future.^  The  question  was  then  con- 
sidered, as  to  how  the  almost  worthless  outstanding  notes 

'  MS.  Rec.  Finance  and  Currency,  II,  50,  146,  150. 

» Col.  Rec,  VII,  390. 

'  Caulkins,  Hist,  of  New  London,  242  et  seq.  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls., 
IV,  279.  A  facsimile  of  a  bill  of  the  New  London  Society  is  printed  in 
Col.  Rec,  VII,  420. 

*  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  IV,  268. 

»  Col.  Rec,  Vll,  421.  An  attempt  was  made  to  revive  the  New  London 
Society  within  one  month  after  its  dissolution,  but  the  General  Court 
voted  that  "  it  would  not  be  to  for  the  peace  and  health  of  the  govern- 
ment "  to  reestablish  it.      Ibid.,  VII,  449. 


52  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   COBPORATE    COLONY. 

of  the  company  might  be  drawn  in.^  The  General  Court 
held  the  members  of  the  Society  responsible  to  the  posses- 
sors of  the  bills,  but  it  was  deemed  expedient  to  aid  the 
former  in  sinking  the  Society  bills.  With  this  purpose  in 
view,  the  General  Court  authorized  the  issuance  of  30,000 
pounds  in  bills  of  credit  of  the  colony ;  15,000  pounds  were 
placed  in  the  hands  of  a  committee,  to  be  loaned  to  mem- 
bers of  the  society,  who  should  hand  over  to  the  com- 
mittee society  bills  to  an  amount  equal  to  that  borrowed 
from  the  colony.  The  loans  bore  interest  at  6  per  cent., 
and  were  secured  by  mortgages  on  land  to  twice  the 
amount  of  the  loan.^  At  the  next  session  of  the  Assembly 
in  1733  it  was  ordered  that  the  remaining  15,000  pounds 
should  be  distributed  equally  among  the  five  counties. 
A  committee  in  each  county  was  authorized  to  loan  the 
notes  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  towns,  in  sums  from  fifty 
to  one  hundred  pounds,  secured  by  mortgages  on  land,  to 
double  the  amount  of  the  loan.  Interest  at  the  rate  of  6 
per  cent,  was  charged.^  Another  issue  of  20,000  pounds 
during  the  same  year  appears  to  have  been  loaned  upon 
the  same  conditions.* 

Whatever  justification  might  be  offered  for  loaning  the 
colony  bills  to  the  defunct  New  London  Society,  no  valid 
reason  can  be  given  for  the  colonial  officials  once  more 
''trotting  after  the  Bay  Horse,"  in  establishing  a  colony 
land  bank.  The  debtor  class,  always  increasing  with  a 
depreciating  currency,  had  evidently  obtained  the  upper 
hand,  and  the  demand  for  a  greater  "medium  of  ex- 
change" could  not  be  resisted  by  the  Assembly.     The 

1  The  amount  of  the  Society's  bills  in  circulation  was,  probably,  about 
10,000  pounds.  Davis,  A  Connecticut  Land  Bank  of  the  Eighteenth  Cen- 
tury, Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  XIII,  81. 

2  Col.  Rec,  VII,  450,  452. 

3  Ihid.,  VII,  455. 

*  Ibid.,  VII,  462;  Bronson,  op.  cit.,  44. 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  53 

colonial  authorities  had  discarded,  if  they  had  ever  appre- 
ciated, all  sound  principles  of  finance. 

From  October  1635  to  May  1740,  no  new  issues  of  bills 
were  authorized.^  In  1739,  began  the  third  of  the  series 
of  intercolonial  wars,  and  with  it  once  more  began  the 
merry  grind  of  the  paper  currency  mills.  In  May,  1740, 
4,000  pounds  in  bills  were  issued,  and  the  following 
July  15,000  more.^  These  were  the  last  of  the  so-called 
''Old  Tenor"  bills. 

Possibly  it  is  needless  to  state  that  there  had  been  a 
steady,  almost  a  disastrous,  depreciation  in  these  bills, 
during  the  period  under  consideration.  Silver,  which  in 
1710  was  worth  8s.  an  ounce  had  risen  in  1739  to  26s.' 
The  colonial  authorities  felt  that  something  must  be  done 

'  In  October  1635,  25,000  pounds  were  issued,  to  be  used  in  sinking  bills 
then  outstanding  which  had  again  been  counterfeited.  In  1739  an  order 
passed  the  Upper  House  for  emitting  10,000  pounds  in  new  bills,  but  it 
was  negatived  in  the  Lower  House,  probably  because  the  amount  was  con- 
sidered too  small.  In  the  same  year  another  complicated  scheme  for 
loaning  Bills  of  Credit  was  proposed  by  the  Lower  House  but  negatived  in 
the  Upper  House.  Col.  Rec,  VIII,  17.  MS.  Rec.  Finance  and  Currency, 
III,  57,  58,  67,  102. 

«  Col.  Rec,  VIII,  295,  327.  In  1740  Gov.  Talcott  in  answer  to  inquiries 
from  the  Board  of  Trade  sent  a  detailed  account  of  the  yearly  emissions  of 
Bills  of  Credit  from  the  first  issues  down  to  1737.  Dr.  Bronson  analyses 
this  table  and  shows  it  to  be  misleading.  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  V,  209 
et  seq.     Bronson,  op.  cit.,  50. 

» The  following  table  is  of  interest  as  showing  the  steady  advance  in 
price  of  silver,  or  conversely  the  steady  decline  in  the  currency. 

1708,  Sept.,   one  ounce  plate       worth     8s.        currency. 

1710,  May,    one  ounce  bullion  worth 

1721,  May,    one  ounce  plate 

1724,  July,    one  ounce  silver 

1729,  July,    one  ounce  silver 

1732,  May,    one  ounce  silver 

1739,  June,    one  ounce  silver 

1742,  Dec,     one  ounce  silver 

1742,  Dec,     one  ounce  silver 

1743,  Feb.,     one  ounce  silver 

1744,  Dec,     one  ounce  silver 
Bronson,  op.  cit.,  52. 


worth     83, 

currency. 

worth  123. 

currency. 

worth  15s. 

currency. 

worth  188. 

2d.  currency. 

worth  18s. 

currency. 

worth  26s. 

currency. 

worth  26s. 

currency. 

worth  28s. 

currency. 

worth  28s. 

currency. 

worth  32s. 

currency. 

54  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

to  stem  this  ever-decreasing  value  of  their  favorite  cur- 
rency. Curiously  enough  the  expedient  adopted  was  the 
issuance  of  more  paper  to  provide  as  they  once  more  said 
for  the  "great  scarcity  of  a  medium  of  exchange."  Eea- 
soning,  perhaps,  that  some  mere  change  in  wording  of  the 
bills,  some  stronger  fiat  expression,  would  in  some  mys- 
terious manner  prevent  further  depreciation,  the  General 
Court  provided  for  the  emission  of  the  so-called  ''New 
Tenor ' '  bills.  These  bills  were  distinctly  stated  to  be  legal 
tender  **in  all  payments  and  in  the  Treasury."  On  the 
face  of  the  bills  it  was  stated  that  they  were  "equal  in 
value  to  silver  at  eight  shillings  per  ounce.  "^  30,000 
pounds  in  these  bills  were  ordered  to  be  struck  oif,  8,000 
pounds  were  used  in  defraying  the  colonial  expenses,  and 
the  remaining  22,000  pounds  were  distributed  among  the 
countries  to  be  loaned  to  the  freeholders  on  mortgage 
security  of  double  value,  with  interest  at  3  per  cent,  an- 
nually. At  the  outset,  this  new  venture  received  a  check 
by  an  order  sent  by  the  Board  of  Trade,  ordering  that  the 
legal  tender  clause  be  stricken  from  the  bills.  This  was 
done,  and  at  the  same  time  the  court  ordered  the  with- 
drawal of  the  new  bills  from  circulation,  by  exchanging 
them  for  old  tenor  bills,  at  the  ratio  of  2|  of  the  latter,  to 
one  of  the  former.^ 

For  four  years  after  1740,  no  new  emissions  of  bills  of 
credit  appeared,  possibly  because  it  was  feared  that  more 
drastic  action  would  be  taken  by  the  home  government.^ 

'Col.  Rec,  VIII,  319. 

'Ibid.,  VIII,  359. 

»  In  1740  the  House  of  Commons  addressed  the  King  requesting  that  he 
send  orders  to  the  different  colonial  governors  requiring  that  they  should 
assent  to  no  act  for  issuing  Bills  of  Credit  in  lieu  of  money,  unless  a 
clause  be  inserted  that  such  act  should  not  take  effect  until  approved  by 
the  King.  The  King  acted  in  compliance  with  this  request.  Conn.  Hist. 
Soc.  Colls.,  V,  245,  296. 

This  order  could  have  no  effect  in  Connecticut  where  the  Governor  did 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  55 

The  continuance  of  the  war  with  Spain,  and,  what  was  of 
greater  moment  to  the  colonies,  the  entrance  of  France  in 
to  the  struggle  in  1744,  excused,  if  it  did  not  necessitate, 
a  further  resort  to  paper  currency.  It  is  wearisome  and 
unproj&table,  to  note  in  detail  the  successive  emissions  of 
new  bills.  In  all  Connecticut  issued  during  the  third 
intercolonial  war,  131,000  in  bills  of  credit,  of  which  109,- 
000  were  of  the  so-called  *  *  New  Tenor. '  '^ 

The  financial  affairs  of  the  colony  were  fast  reach- 
ing a  crisis.  Nothing  could  stop  the  constant  and  rapid 
depreciation  of  the  paper  currency.  Silver  which  could 
be  bought  in  1739  at  28s.  per  ounce,  in  paper,  had 
risen  in  1744  to  32s.  and  in  1749  to  558.^  The  credit 
of  the  colony  was  utterly  ruined;  trade  and  commerce 
were  demoralized.  Contracts  could  not  be  safely  made, 
for  no  one  knew  what  would  be  the  value  of  the  cur- 
rency from  day  to  day.  With  the  close  of  the  war  in 
1748,  the  colony  officials  began  to  think  of  some  plan  for 
extricating  the  colony  from  the  intolerable  condition  of 
affairs.  Here  again  Connecticut  followed  as  she  had 
done  so  often  before  the  lead  of  Massachusetts.^  It  was 
provided  by  the  Assembly,  May,  1749,  that  all  money  that 
should  be  received  from  England  to  reimburse  the  colony 

not  have  the  power  to  approve  or  disapprove  the  acts  of  the  Assembly.  In 
the  then  existing  condition  of  affairs,  however,  the  colonial  authorities 
probably  deemed  it  wise  not  to  call  the  attention  of  the  authorities  in 
England  to  the  weakness  of  the  executive  and  the  absence  of  any  means  of 
imperial  control  in  the  colony. 

>  The  New  Tenor  bills  were  not  used  in  ordinary  business  transactions, 
and  did  not  depreciate  as  badly  as  the  Old  Tenor  bills.  They  came  finally 
to  be  worth  in  the  proportion  of  three  and  one  half  of  the  latter  to  one 
of  the  former.      Bronson,  op.  cit,  64,  65. 

«  Ihid.,  65. 

'  In  1 748  the  plan  suggested  by  Thos.  Hutchinson  was  adopted  in  Massa- 
chusetts. The  money  which  was  received  from  England  to  reimburse  the 
colony  for  its  expenses  in  the  war  was  used  for  sinking  the  Bills  of  Credit. 
Bronson,  op.  cit.,  66;  Felt,  op.  cit.,  124. 


56  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

for  the  expenses  of  the  late  war,  should  be  used  for  sink- 
ing the  outstanding  bills  of  credit.^  800,000  pounds  were 
appropriated  by  Parliament  in  1747  to  reimburse  the 
colonies  for  their  expenses  in  the  Louisburg  expedition, 
of  which  sum  Connecticut  received  some  28,000  pounds.^ 
According  to  the  auditors'  report,  there  were  outstand- 
ing over  340,000  pounds  in  bills  of  credit.^  The  Assem- 
bly had  provided  that  of  the  amount  received  by  the 
colony  from  England,  one  half  should  be  sold  for  bills  of 
credit,  and  one  half  for  silver  coin,  the  latter  to  be  used 
by  the  Treasurer  in  redeeming  the  bills  of  credit.  All 
bills  brought  into  the  treasury  were  to  be  burned.  To 
sink  the  remainder  of  the  bills,  three  three-penny  taxes 
were  levied,  payable  in  the  bills  of  credit  in  1751,  1752, 
and  1753.^  The  colony  bills  that  were  brought  into  the 
treasury  by  taxes,  were  paid  out  in  discharging  the  ordi- 
nary colony  expenses  until  1753.  In  that  year  the  Assem- 
bly, urged  on  probably  by  the  further  hostile  attitude  of 
the  home  authorities,  took  the  final  step  by  ordering  that 
all  taxes  should  be  paid  thereafter  in  lawful  or  ''procla- 
mation ' '  money,  and  that  those  who  were  forced  to  pay  in 
colony  bills,  they  should  be  accepted  at  the  rate  of  14s.  7d. 
"New  Tenor"  or  51s.  "Old  Tenor"  for  6s.  lawful  money. 
At  the  same  time,  it  was  ordered  that  no  more  of  the 
bills  should  be  issued  from  the  treasury  for  any  purpose.^ 

"■  Col.  Rec,  IX,  447. 

*  Arnold,  Hist  of  Rhode  Island,  II,   170;   Bronson,  op.  cit.,  69. 
»  Col.  Rec,  X,  65. 

*  Col.  Rec,  IX,  447.  These  taxes  seem  to  have  been  more  than  sufficient 
to  provide  for  the  remaining  bills,  for  two  thirds  of  the  taxes  payable  in 
1751  and  1752  were  abated  by  the  Assembly.      Ibid.,  X,  65,  128. 

»  Col.  Rec,  X,  157.  In  1751  Parliament,  which  had  been  considering 
the  subject  of  colonial  currency,  enacted  a  statute  prohibiting  the  Gov- 
ernors of  the  New  England  colonies  from  assenting  to  any  act  for  the 
issuance  of  Bills  of  Credit,  except  for  current  expenses  which  were  to  run 
for  a  period  not  longer  than  two  years,  or  in  cases  of  emergency  for  a 
period  of  five  years.     Statutes  at  Large,  14,  George  II,  Chap.  37. 


FINANCE   AND   CURRENCY.  57 

The  colony  thus  emerged  from  the  paper  money  craze  by 
the  simple,  though  dishonorable,  expedient  of  paying 
one  ninth  of  its  obligations,  and  repudiating  the  other 
eight  ninths. 

Before  all  of  the  old  bills  had  been  called  in,  war  again 
broke  out  between  England  and  France,  and  the  colony 
was  once  more  put  to  it  to  provide  for  the  extraordinary 
expenses  of  the  government.  The  system  of  borrowing 
money  without  interest,  had  exploded;  but  some  means 
had  to  be  devised  to  meet  the  increasing  burden  of  ex- 
pense, due  to  the  war.  The  plan  adopted  was  much  more 
sound  than  any  which  had  been  previously  tried.  In 
January,  1755,  the  Court  voted  to  issue  7,500  pounds  in 
interest-bearing  treasury  notes.  In  form  the  notes  were 
as  follows: 

No.  (         )  20s. 

The  possessor  of  this  Bill  shall  be  paid  by  the  Treas- 
urer of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut,  Twenty  Shillings  Law- 
ful Money,  with  interest  at  5  per  cent,  per  annum,  by  the 
8th  day  of  May,  1758.  By  order  of  the  Assembly  at  New 
Haven,  January  8th,  1755. 

For  sinking  the  bills,  a  tax  of  2d.  on  the  pound  was 
granted,  payable  in  the  new  bills  or  lawful  money,  by  the 
last  day  of  August,  1757.^ 

In  March,  1755,  the  Assembly  again  took  up  the  con- 
sideration of  the  colony's  financial  condition.  There  was 
still  in  the  Treasury  some  5,000  pounds  in  gold  and  silver 
hypothecated  for  the  redemption  of  the  old  colony  bills. 
In  order  to  liberate  this  money  to  defray  the  colonial  ex- 
penses, the  Assembly  ordered  that  the  Treasurer  should 
tender  to  persons  presenting  colony  bills  for  redemption, 
interest  bearing  colony  notes,  payable  in  three  annual 
installments  in  the  years  1756,  1757  and  1758.     Taxes 

'  Col.  Rec,  X,  329. 


58  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

suflficient  to  sink  the  notes  at  maturity  were  ordered,  pay- 
able in  lawful  money,  colony  bills,  or  commodities.^  Dur- 
ing the  continuance  of  the  war,  frequent  resort  was  made 
to  these  colony  notes  for  defraying  the  expenses  of  the 
government.  They  were  all  of  the  same  tenor,  bearing 
interest  at  5  per  cent.,  and  payable  at  a  stated  time. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  payment  was  postponed  on  any 
of  the  notes,  or  that  they  were  re-issued  when  once 
brought  into  the  Treasury.  In  strictness  these  notes  did 
not  form  a  part  of  the  currency,  but  were  in  the  nature  of 
colony  bonds,  varying  in  value,  as  such  instruments  do 
to-day,  according  to  the  time  they  had  to  run,  the  inter- 
est accrued  and  the  confidence  of  the  buyer  in  the  maker 
of  the  bonds.^  There  is,  however,  evidence  that  they 
served  as  money  in  the  discharge  of  debts. 

After  1764,  the  emission  of  these  notes  ceased  until 
1770,  when  a  new  issue  of  10,000  pounds  was  ordered,  and 
the  interest  reduced  to  2^  per  cent.  This  would  indicate 
that  the  colony's  credit  had  improved. 

The  following  year  the  colony  inaugurated  a  new  era 
of  fiat  money;  non-interest  bearing  notes  were  agian  re- 
sorted to,  after  an  interval  of  twenty-five  years. ^  Down 
to  the  Revolution,  however,  this  new  venture  did  not  re- 
sult in  disaster.  The  notes  were  not  issued  in  large 
amounts,  were  redeemable  within  two  years,  and  do  not 
appear  to  have  depreciated  in  value.  ^ 

'  Ibid.,  X,  339. 
'  Bronson,  op.  cit.,  82. 
»  Col.  Rec,  XIII,  516. 
*  Bronson,  op.  cit.,  84. 


CHAPTER   III. 
Land  System. 

When  the  inhabitants  of  the  three  river  towns  left 
Massachusetts  for  their  new  homes  upon  the  banks  of 
the  Connecticut,  they  settled  upon  territory  to  which  they 
had  no  title,  except  a  squatter's  right  of  possession.  In 
the  absence  of  any  Royal  Charter  or  grant  from  the 
New  England  Council,  the  colonists  early  turned  their 
attention  to  strengthening  their  right  of  possession,  by 
purchasing  the  claims  of  the  native  proprietors.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  the  founders  of  Connecticut  accepted 
the  views  of  Roger  Williams,  that  a  valid  title  could  only 
be  obtained  by  purchase  from  the  Indians,  but  they  pos- 
sessed themselves  of  the  native  title,  as  the  only  one  that 
could  be  obtained  under  the  circumstances.  Unquestion- 
ably the  colonists  were  also  prompted  by  a  spirit  of  fair- 
ness towards  the  Indians,  in  paying  them  for  their  land, 
for  even  after  the  granting  of  the  Royal  Charter  in  1662, 
when  the  title  of  the  colonists  to  their  land  no  longer 
rested  upon  occupation  and  purchase,  there  was  uniform 
action  in  extinguishing  the  Indian  title,  by  purchase  and 
treaty.^ 

It  was  early  recognized  that  much  confusion  would 
result  from  indiscriminate  purchases  of  land  by  in- 
dividuals from  the  natives.  The  Indians  were  none  too 
careful  about  selling  the  same  land  several  times  to  dif- 
ferent purchasers,  and  many  conflicting  claims  resulted.^ 
To  avoid  such  confusion  of  titles,  the  colonial  authorities 

^Col.  Rec,  II,  151,  254;  IV,  305,  526. 

«  Larned,  Hist,  of  Windham  Co.,  I,  195,  150. 

59 


60  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE    COLONY. 

attempted  to  restrict  the  purchase  of  land  from  the  In- 
dians to  those  who  had  received  the  consent  of  the  Gen- 
eral Court. ^  These  orders  of  the  General  Court,  however, 
seem  to  have  been  ''honored  more  in  the  breach  than  in 
the  observance."  It  is  true  that  there  are  instances 
where  persons  or  groups  of  persons,  applied  to  the  Court 
for  authority  to  purchase  land  from  the  Indians,^  but 
unauthorized  purchases  undoubtedly  continued,  and  it 
must  be  confessed  that  the  action  of  the  General  Court, 
would  incline  one  to  believe  that  it  did  not  consistently 
enforce  its  own  orders.' 

By  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, practically  all  the  Indian  claims  to  the  territory 
of  the  colony  had  been  extinguished  by  purchase  or 
treaty,  some  of  them  several  times  over.* 

For  more  than  twenty-five  years,  the  colonists  of  Con- 
necticut held  their  lands  merely  by  de  facto  possession 
and  native  purchase.^  In  1662,  however,  through  the 
efforts  of  John  Winthrop,  the  younger,  a  Royal  Charter 
was  obtained,  confirming  to  the  colony  not  only  the  land 
which  they  occupied,  but  also  annexing  to  it  the  formerly 
independent  jurisdiction  of  New  Haven.  The  Charter 
granted  the  land  to  be  held  as  "of  the  Manor  of  East 
Greenwich ' '  in  free  and  common  soccage  on  the  condition 

>  Col.  Rec,  I,  402;  II,  151;  IV,  305. 

«  MS.  Rec.  Towns  and  Lands,  IV,  66,  68. 

»  After  repeatedly  forbidding  unauthorized  transfers  of  land  from  the 
natives,  the  General  Court  in  1706  ordered  that  if  any  person  who  had 
made  such  an  illegal  purchase  should  present  an  account  of  it  to  the  Court 
no  advantage  would  be  taken  of  it.  The  following  year  this  act  was  re- 
pealed.     Col.  Rec,  V,  4,  30. 

*  Cothren,  Hist,  of  Ancient  Woodbury,  21. 

*  I  pass  by  the  somewhat  mythical  claim  based  upon  the  Warwick 
patent.  For  a  discussion  of  this  patent  see  Johnston,  Connecticut,  88  et 
seq;  Peters,  Hist  of  Conn.,  25  et  seq.;  Hoadley,  Warwick  Patent,  Acorn 
Club  Publications,  No.  7. 


LAND   SYSTEM.  61 

of  the  payment  of  one  fifth  the  gold  and  silver  found  in 
the  colony.^ 

Prior  to  the  formation  of  the  Fundamental  Orders  the 
inhabitants  of  the  three  river  towns  appear  to  have  acted 
upon  their  own  initiative  in  making  purchases  of  land 
from  the  natives.  Neither  the  Massachusetts  Commis- 
sion nor  the  Court  which  displaced  it  seems  to  have  con- 
trolled the  granting  of  land.  After  1639,  however,  all 
unoccupied  land  became  public  domain,  and  by  the  Fun- 
damental Orders,  the  right  to  dispose  of  such  land  was 
given  to  the  General  Court.^ 

The  parceling  out  of  the  land  of  the  colony  was  accom- 
plished in  two  ways,  first,  by  grants  to  individuals,  and 
second,  by  grants  to  groups  of  individuals.  The  indi- 
vidual grants,  which  were  very  common  during  the  first 
fifty  years  of  the  colony's  history,  were  in  the  nature  of 
pensions,  salaries,  gratuities,  or  for  the  encouragement  of 
some  commercial  enterprise.'  These  grants  were  often 
made  by  the  General  Court  in  the  most  indefinite  way, 
allowing  the  grantee  to  choose  the  land  wherever  he 
pleased,  so  long  as  it  did  not  prejudice  any  former 
grant.*  As  we  approach  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, individual  grants  of  land  by  the  General  Court  be- 
come less  common,  but  do  not  entirely  cease. ^  By  far 
the  most  important  manner  of  dividing  the  colony  lands 
was  by  means  of  grants  to  groups  of  individuals  with  the 
object  of  forming  new  plantations.  These  grants  were 
usually  made  in  answer  to  petitions  from  actual  or  pros- 

*  Poore's  Charters  and  Constitutions,  I,  252  et  seq. ;  Cheyney,  The  Manor 
of  East  Greenwich,  Am.  Hist  Rev.,  Oct.,  1905. 

=*  Col.  Rec,  I,  25. 

3  Ibid.,  I,  27G,  323;  II,  200,  214;  III,  233. 

*  Thus  we  find  150  acres  to  be  taken  up  "where  it  doe  not  damnify 
the  Indians  nor  ye  plantation,"  and  again  "  where  he  can  find  it  in  Con- 
necticut limits."      Col.  Kec,  I,  340,  372. 

*  For  grants  subsequent  to  1700  see  MS.  Rec.  Towns  and  Lands,  III. 


62  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

pective  settlers  of  a  new  plantation.^  If  the  petition  was 
approved  by  the  Court,  a  committee  was  generally  ap- 
pointed to  view  the  joroposed  plantation,  to  see  if  the 
location  was  suitable,  to  consider  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants it  would  accommodate,  and  to  lay  out  the  town  plot 
and  home  lots.^  The  General  Court  might,  and  often 
did,  direct  more  fully  the  formation  of  a  new  town.  It 
was  common  for  the  Court  to  restrict  the  time  in  which 
the  settlers  should  occupy  and  improve  their  grants.^ 
The  manner  in  which  the  land  should  be  divided  among 
the  settlers  was  at  times  specified  by  the  General  Court. 
Thus  it  was  ordered  that  each  proprietor  should  have 
''equal  and  even  shares"  of  the  lands  in  Ridgefield."* 
In  granting  the  plantation  at  Litchfield,  the  Court 
ordered  that  the  township  should  be  divided  into  60 
''rights,"  three  of  which  were  to  be  reserved  for  pious 
purposes.^  In  settling  the  town  of  Waterbury,  the  com- 
mittee of  the  General  Court  controlled  the  plantation  for 
five  years. ^  Add  to  the  above  activities  of  the  Court  the 
appointment  of  surveyors  to  fix  the  bounds  of  town 
grants,  the  settlement  of  disputes  between  towns  as  to 
their  respective  boundaries,  and  the  occasional  minute 
direction  in  special  cases,  and  we  have  a  substantially 
complete  view  of  the  land  system,  so  far  as  the  colony 
was  concerned.  In  short,  the  land  system  of  Connecticut 
was  similar  in  all  respects  to  that  of  the  other  corporate 
colonies  of  New  England.''  In  these  colonies  there  ap- 
peared no  systematic  attempt  to  obtain  a  revenue  from 

1  Occasionally  the  General  Court  took  direct  action  in  settling  a  town- 
ship without  a  petition.      Col.  Rec,  V,  180;  VI,  63. 
«  Col.  Rec,  II,  210;  V,  55,  160. 
3  Ibid.,  II,  128. 
*Ibid.,  V,  121. 
s  Ibid.,  VI,  127. 

8  Anderson,  Hist,  of  Waterbury,  I,   150. 
'  Osgood,  American  Colonies,  I,  425  et  seq. 


LAND    SYSTEM.  63 

the  public  domain.  Land  was  granted  freely  to  the 
settlers,  and  seldom  leased  or  sold  by  the  colony.  Quit 
rents  and  alienation  fines  formed  no  part  of  the  revenue 
of  the  corporate  colonies.  It  is  true  that  during  the 
eighteenth  century  public  land  was  not  granted  with  such 
a  free  hand  in  Connecticut  as  had  formerly  been  the  case. 
It  became  common,  in  fact  even  the  rule,  for  the  colony 
to  require  some  compensation  for  land  grants,^  but  there 
is  no  evidence  that  the  colony  aimed  to  obtain  a  per- 
manent revenue  by  leasing  the  public  lands,  nor  do  any 
officials  distinctly  charged  with  the  administration  of 
the  public  domain  appear. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  manner  in  which  the 
land  granted  to  groups  of  individuals  was  distributed; 
how  individual  ownership  displaced  joint  ownership.  It 
is  in  this  connection  that  the  real  importance  of  the  land 
system  appears.  It  is  to  be  expected  that  the  different 
localities  in  working  out  an  agrarian  policy  would  vary 
in  some  essential  points,  and  in  many  details.  Such  being 
the  case,  it  is  difficult  to  make  a  general  statement  as  to 
the  land  policy,  which  would  apply  equally  to  all  the 
towns.  There  was,  however,  enough  similarity  of  treat- 
ment to  justify  us  in  speaking  of  a  land  system.  Fur- 
thermore, there  was  sufficient  difference  between  the 
territorial  policies  of  the  towns  formed  during  the  seven- 
teenth century  and  of  those  formed  during  the  eighteenth 
century  to  warrant  us  in  treating  them  separately. 

It  has  been  noted  that  the  settlement  of  a  town  was 
usually  occasioned  by  a  petition  from  prospective  or 
actual  settlers.  These  settlers  fomied  a  reasonably 
definite  group,  and  we  are  met  at  the  outset  with  the 
question— were    these    petitioners    granted    the    land    as 

'  The  most  noteworthy  of  the  sales  of  public  lands  was  that  of  the 
seven  townships  sold  at  public  auction  in  1737.  Col.  Rec,  VIII,  134,  170. 
See  also  Col.  Rec,  VI,  194;  MS.  Rec.  Towns  and  Lands,  II,  273. 


64  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   COEPORATE   COLONY. 

proprietors  in  fee  simple,  or  were  they  acting  merely  as 
trustees  for  the  town  in  its  corporate  capacity!  During 
the  first  fifty  years  of  the  colony's  history,  the  question 
did  not  appear  to  be  of  much  importance.  In  most  of 
the  towns  the  grantees  included  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  free- 
men of  the  town,  and  under  these  circumstances  a  town 
meeting  would  be  at  the  same  time  a  meeting  of  the  pro- 
prietors. As  a  result  it  became  customary  in  most  of 
the  towns  during  the  seventeenth  century  to  make  allot- 
ments of  land  and  provide  for  the  regulation  of  the  un- 
divided land  in  the  town  meeting.^  The  attitude  of  the 
General  Court,  moreover,  seemed  to  confirm  the  view 
that  the  towns  should  have  the  power  to  regulate  their 
common  lands.  In  1639,  in  defining  the  power  of  towns, 
the  General  Court  stated  that  the  "Towns  of  Hartford, 
"Windsor  and  Wethersfield,  or  any  other  Towns  within 
this  jurisdiction,  shall  each  of  them  have  power  to  dispose 
of  their  own  lands  undisposed  of."^  Again,  in  1643,  the 
General  Court  ordered  that  as  the  condition  of  the  plan- 
tations required  that  much  of  the  land  should  be  improved 
in  common,  each  town  should,  before  the  next  meeting  of 
the  Court,  choose  seven  "able  and  discreet  men  to  take 
the  common  lands  belonging  to  ech  of  the  seurall  townes, 
respectively,  into  their  serious  and  sadde  consideration."^ 
As  we  approach  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
however,  the  distinction  between  the  original  settlers  and 
their  descendants,  and  those  who  came  in  after  the  settle- 

^  Hartford  Town  Votes,  39,  42,  46,  et  passim;  Adams-Stiles,  Hist,  of 
Wethersfield,  I,  95;  Amlrews,  Three  River  Towns,  J.  H.  U.  S.,  VII;  Allen, 
Hist,  of  Enfield,  passim;  Steiner,  Hist,  of  Guilford,  174;  Colchester,  Town 
Rec.,  passim;  Caulkins,  Hist,  of  Norwich,  95;  Cothren,  Hist,  of  Ancient 
Woodbury,  145. 

=  Col.  Rec,  I,  36. 

s  Col.  Rec,  I,  101.  It  is  possible  that  this  referred  merely  to  the 
sequestered  town  commons,  but  it  does  not  appear  from  the  records  that 
such  was  the  meaning  of  the  provision. 


LAND   SYSTEM.  65 

ment  of  the  towns,  becomes  more  marked.  Land  had  in- 
creased in  value  with  the  increase  in  population.  The 
number  of  inhabitants  who  were  not  descendants  of  origi- 
nal settlers  was  constantly  augmented.  As  a  result  we 
find  developing  in  most  of  the  towns  three  distinct  classes 
of  inhabitants:  first,  the  original  settlers  or  '^proprie- 
tors," their  heirs,  assigns  and  successors;  second,  ad- 
mitted inhabitants  of  the  town,  who  were  not  proprie- 
tors; third,  transients,  who  were  neither  proprietors  nor 
admitted  inhabitants.^  The  first  two  classes  formed  the 
active  part  of  the  population  of  the  town.  The  pro- 
prietors were,  relatively,  a  fixed  group,  while  the  ad- 
mitted inhabitants  were  constantly  increasing.  In  the 
natural  course  of  events,  the  latter  would  soon  come  to 
hold  the  balance  of  power  in  the  town  meeting,  and  as  the 
administration  of  the  land  had  become  a  function  of  the 
town  meeting,  they  would  control  the  distribution  of  the 
undivided  land. 

The  proprietors,  in  order  not  to  lose  control  of  the 
land,  set  up  the  claim  that  the  grant  made  by  the  General 
Court,  was  to  the  original  settlers,  their  heirs,  assigns 
and  successors  in  fee  simple,  and  not  to  the  town  in  its 
corporate  capacity,  and  that  the  proprietors  should  have 
the  exclusive  right  to  grant  the  undivided  land  in  the 
town.  In  some  of  the  towns  where  the  Proprietors  were 
still  in  the  majority,  no  effective  opposition  was  made  to 
their  claims,^  but  in  towns  where  the  non-commoners 
equalled  or  outnumbered  the  proprietors,  the  pretensions 

>  Dr.  Stiles  in  his  recent  thorough  study  of  VVethersfield  makes  a  four- 
fold division  (1)  proprietors,  (2)  freemen  of  the  commonwealth,  (3)  ad- 
mitted inhabitants  of  the  town  not  freemen  of  the  commonwealth,  (4) 
householders.  This  classification  does  not  include  the  transient  resident, 
who,  though  he  received  scant  courtesy  from  the  town,  was  still  a  portion 
of  the  population.      Adams-Stiles,  Hist,  of  Wethersfield,  I,  41. 

*  In  Windsor  undivided  land  was  granted  exclusively  by  the  proprietors. 
Andrews,  Three  River  Towns. 


66  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

of  the  latter  were  not  quietly  acquiesced  in.  In  Simsbury, 
as  early  as  1672,  a  controversy  arose  as  to  wlietlier  the 
''outlands"  belonged  to  the  original  proprietors,  or  to 
the  inhabitants  of  the  town  generally.  At  a  town  meet- 
ing held  in  April,  1672,  it  was  voted  to  divide  a  portion 
of  these  lands  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  town;  simi- 
lar divisions  were  also  voted  in  1680  and  1688,  against 
all  of  which  the  proprietors  protested  ineffectually.  The 
question  again  arose  in  1719,  when  a  committee  appointed 
for  the  purpose  reported,  and  the  town  voted,  that  "the 
right  of  disposal  of  common  or  undivided  land,  is  and 
shall  be  in  all  such  and  them  only  who  can  derive  their 
right  so  to  do,  either  from  an  act  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, and  their  heirs  and  assigns,  or  those  who  have  been 
admitted  inhabitants,  and  their  heirs  and  assigns,  or  shall 
hereafter  be  admitted  inhabitants  with  that  power  and 
right  expressly  inserted  in  the  town's  vote  of  admis- 
sion."^ To  this  action  of  the  town  the  proprietors  took 
exception.  The  town,  however,  continued  to  grant  the 
undivided  land  until  the  action  of  the  General  Court  sus- 
tained the  contention  of  the  proprietors,  after  which  the 
remaining  common  lands  were  managed  and  conveyed 
exclusively  by  the  proprietors.  Similar  controversies 
were  carried  on  in  New  London,  Canterbury,  Ashford  and 
other  towns. 2 

It  was  in  connection  with  the  struggle  in  New  London, 
that  the  question  was  brought  before  the  General  Court  in 
1719  for  final  settlement  by  petitions  from  both  the  town 
and  the  proprietors.''     The  attitude  of  the  General  Court 

'  Phelps,  Hist,  of  Simsbury,  80. 

*  Caulkins,  Hist  of  New  London,  263 ;  Lamed,  Hist,  of  Windham  Co., 
I,  156;  Ibid.,  I,  214  et  seq. 

'MS.  Rec.  Towns  and  Lands,  III,  174-184.  Gov.  Saltonstall  strongly 
supported  the  proprietors  of  which  he  was  one.  See  his  protest  against 
the  action  of  the  town  in  dividing  the  common  lands.  MS.  Rec.  Towns 
and  Lands,  III,  239. 


LAND    SYSTEM.  67 

had  been  at  first,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  towns  were 
empowered  to  regulate  and  dispose  of  the  common  lands. 
The  first  indication  of  a  change  of  view  on  the  part  of 
the  Court  was  in  1685,  when  patents  were  first  issued 
to  the  various  towns.  ^  In  these  patents  it  was  stated 
that  the  land  in  the  towns  was  granted  "to  the  said  pro- 
prietors inhabitants,  their  heirs  and  assigns.'^'  In  con- 
firming the  patents  of  several  towns  in  1703,  the  follow- 
ing even  stronger  expression  was  used:  "all  and  every 
the  several  above  mentioned  lands  with  all  rights  and  im- 
munities contained  in  the  above  mentioned  patent,  shall  be 
and  remain  a  full  and  clear  estate  of  inheritance  in  fee  sim- 
ple to  the  several  proprietors  of  the  respective  towns.  "^ 
The  next  expression  of  the  General  Court  upon  this 
important  question,  was  in  answer  to  the  New  London 
petitions.  When  the  petition  of  the  town  was  first  pre- 
sented long  debates  ensued,  the  Upper  House  favoring 
the  proprietors  and  the  Lower  House  favoring  the  town.  * 
The  Court  finally  ordered  that,  it  "being  a  matter  of  so 
great  weight  and  general  concern  as  to  effect  the  gener- 
ality of  the  towns, ' '  consideration  of  the  question  should 
be  postponed  until  the  next  session  of  the  Court. ^  At 
the  following  session  it  was  resolved  that  the  patent  to 
the  town  did  "confirm  the  lands  in  said  township  to  each 
and  every  proprietor  in  such  towns,  and  to  such  as  have 
any  distinct  propriety  there  though  not  living  in  such 
towns  .  .  .  also  all  lands  not  divided  or  disposed  to  hold 
as  tenants  in  common ;  all  of  which  undivided  lands  were 
confirmed  to  them,  the  said  proprietors,  their  heirs  and 

1  Probably  the  reason  for  the  issuance  of  the  patents  was  to  guarantee 
the  titles  to  land  that  had  been  granted,  before  the  colony's  charter  was 
vacated  by  Quo  Warranto  proceedings  which  were  then  pending. 

2  Col.  Rec,  111,  177. 
»  Col.  Rec,  IV,  443. 

*  MS.  Rec.  Towns  and  Lands,  III,   174  et  seq. 
«Col.  Rec,  VI,  131. 


68  CONKECTICUT    AS   A   CORPORATE    COLONY. 

assigns,  so  that  no  person  by  becoming  an  inhabitant 
afterwards  could  have  any  right  to  dispose  of  any  land 
in  said  town  by  voting  in  a  town  meeting."^  But  the 
General  Court  ordered  that  all  titles  to  land  which  had 
been  previously  obtained  by  town  votes  were  to  be  valid. 

The  proprietors  having  carried  their  point,  in  many  of 
the  towns  they  took  steps  to  organize  themselves  in  a 
more  permanent  manner.  Proprietors'  meetings  were 
held  distinct  from  the  town  meetings,  and  the  regulation 
and  disposal  of  the  undivided  land  was  thenceforth  con- 
trolled exclusively  by  the  proprietors.  The  corporate 
character  of  the  proprietors  was  recognized  by  the  Gen- 
eral Court  in  a  number  of  acts.  The  proprietors  were 
required  to  hold  a  meeting  upon  the  application  of  at 
least  five  of  their  number ;  they  were  empowered  to  levy 
taxes  upon  themselves,  and  to  choose  a  clerk  duly  sworn 
to  record  their  proceedings.^  At  a  proprietors'  meeting 
a  moderator  and  clerk,  and  usually  a  treasurer,  were 
chosen.  Much  of  the  business  of  the  proprietors  was 
transacted  by  means  of  committees.  Thus  committees 
were  appointed  to  provide  for  the  division  of  the  common 
lands,  to  look  after  the  common  fence,  to  search  out  and 
prosecute  trespassers,  to  survey  grants  and  lay  out  high- 
ways, etc.^  Attorneys  were  also  appointed  by  the  pro- 
prietors to  prosecute  and  defend  all  actions  brought  in 
the  name  of  the  proprietors. 

While  the  proprietors  in  any  given  town  were,  in 
theory,  the  heirs,  assigns  and  successors  of  the  original 
settlers,  and  hence  tended  to  become  a  close  corporation, 
in  many  of  the  older  towns  the  theory  did  not  agree  with 

>  Ibid.,  VI,  189. 
« Ibid.,  VI,  25,  379,  424. 

3  See  Proprietors  Rec.  of  New  Hartford,  Norfolk,  Canaan,  Guilford  and 
other  towns. 


LAND   SYSTEM.  69 

the  facts.  Through  lack  of  records  in  some  towns  it  was 
impossible  to  discover  who  were  the  original  settlers,  and 
in  such  cases  the  taxable  inhabitants  at  a  given  time  were 
reckoned  as  proprietors.^  Furthermore,  the  proprietors 
not  infrequently  added  to  their  numbers.  Thus  in  1713,  the 
proprietors  of  Colchester  voted  to  add  some  twenty-four 
persons  to  the  list  of  proprietors.^  In  Waterbury  we  find 
a  distinction  made  between  the  original  proprietors  called 
"Grand  Proprietors"  and  those  later  admitted  called 
"Bachelor  Proprietors."  The  latter  shared  in  the  divis- 
ions of  common  lands,  but  had  no  voice  in  granting  land.* 

We  have  thus  far  examined  the  administration  of  the 
land  system,  as  it  developed  in  the  towns  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that,  while 
at  first  the  towns  in  their  corporate  capacity  regulated 
the  territorial  policy,  by  the  end  of  the  century  the  pro- 
prietary system  had  become  general.  In  many  of  the 
older  towns,  however,  the  greater  part  of  the  common 
land  had  been  distributed  before  the  proprietors  obtained 
exclusive  control,  and  hence  their  activity  was  consider- 
ably restricted.  It  is  when  we  reach  the  towns  formed 
during  the  eighteenth  century,  that  we  find  the  system 
of  proprietary  holdings  most  fully  developed.  We  come 
now  to  consider  these  towns. 

The  territory  from  which  the  greater  number  of  the 
towns  of  the  eighteenth  century  were  formed  was  the  so- 
called  ' '  Western  Lands, ' '  covering  approximately  the  pres- 
ent county  of  Litchfield.    All  of  this  vast  territory  compris- 

*  In  Guilford  the  body  of  the  proprietors  was  fixed  by  town  vote  in 
1697,  and  included  all  those  that  were  settled  planters  in  1686.  Steiner, 
Hist,  of  Guilford,  174.  In  New  London  such  persons  as  were  land  holders 
in  1703  when  the  town  patent  was  granted  were  considered  proprietors. 
Caulkins,  Hist,  of  New  London,  263. 

^Colchester,  Prop.  Rec,  April  28,  1713. 

'Anderson,  Hist,  of  Waterbury,  I,  280;  Bronson,  Hist,  of  Waterbury, 
116. 


70  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    COKPORATE    COLONY. 

ing  over  300,000  acres,  had  been  granted  by  the  General 
Court  to  the  towns  of  Hartford  and  Windsor,  in  1675.^ 
This  grant  was  made  in  anticipation  of  the  loss  of  the 
charter,  and  in  order  to  prevent  the  lands  from  falling 
into  the  hands  of  Andros.  Not  much  attention  was  paid 
to  the  territory,  until  after  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth 
century.  The  land  was  rugged,  and  other  more  desirable 
territory  was  available  for  settlement. 

The  first  attempt  made  by  the  Hartford  and  Windsor 
patentees  to  improve  their  grant,  was  in  the  settlement 
of  the  town  of  Litchfield  in  1719.  The  General  Court 
while  granting  the  privilege  of  settling  this  town,  prac- 
tically rescinded,  at  the  same  time,  the  former  extensive 
grant  to  the  two  towns. ^  The  inhabitants  of  Hartford 
and  Windsor,  resisted^  this  act  of  the  General  Court,  and 
the  title  to  the  lands  was  in  dispute  until  1726,  when  a 
compromise  was  reached  by  dividing  the  territory  be- 
tween the  two  towns  and  the  colony.^  The  territory  re- 
served to  the  colony  embraced  the  present  towns  of 
Canaan,  Norfolk,  Goshen  (including  Warren)  and  about 
two  thirds  of  Kent,  while  Hartford  and  AVindsor  received 
the  present  towns  of  Colebrook,  Hartland,  Winchester, 
Barkhamsted,  Torrington,  New  Hartford  and  Harwinton. 
These  towns  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  nearly  all  the 
towns  formed  during  the  eighteenth  century,  and  an  ex- 
amination of  the  system  of  land  administration  in  these 
towns  will  suffice  as  showing  the  chief  characteristics  of 
all  towns  formed  during  this  period. 

In  1732,  the  towns  of  Hartford  and  Windsor  made  a 
division  of  their  portion  of  the  Western  Lands,  by  which 

'  Col.  Rec,  111,  225. 

-Ihid.,  VI,  127. 

^  Trunibiill  gives  an  account  of  a  riot  at  Hartford  caused  by  the  dis- 
pute over  the  title  to  this  territory.  This  story,  however,  has  been  dis- 
credited.     Trumbull,  11,  AG;  Boyd,  Annals  of  Winchester,  II. 

*Ibid.,  VII,  44,  337. 


LAND    SYSTEM.  71 

the  townships  of  Hartland,  Winchester  and  New  Hart- 
ford, and  the  eastern  half  of  Harwinton,  went  to  Hartford, 
and  the  townships  of  Colebrook,  Barkhamsted,  Torring- 
ton  and  the  western  half  of  Hai'winton,  fell  to  Windsor. 
In  the  same  year  the  General  Court  authorized  the  in- 
habitants of  Windsor,  and  the  following  year  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Hartford,  to  meet  and  make  partition  of  their 
land  to  individual  proprietors.^  The  taxable  inhabitants 
of  the  two  towns  were  then  divided  into  seven  ''com- 
panies," each  owning  a  township.  The  share  of  any 
individual  in  a  company,  depended  upon  the  amount  of 
his  ratable  estate  in  Hartford  or  Windsor. 

The  manner  in  which  the  part  of  Western  Lands  reserved 
to  the  colony  was  disposed  of,  and  proprietorships  created, 
is  of  interest,  as  characteristic  of  the  way  in  which  prac- 
tically all  the  remaining  public  domain  was  parceled  out. 
In  1737  the  General  Court  ordered  that  the  five  town- 
ships on  the  east  of  the  Housatonic  River,  and  the  two 
on  the  west,^  should  be  sold  at  public  auction  in  certain 
specified  towns  of  the  colony.^  Six  of  the  seven  town- 
ships were  divided  into  fifty-three  "rights"  or  shares.^ 
Three  of  the  rights  in  each  township  were  reserved,  one 
for  the  use  of  the  ministry,  one  as  a  gratuity  to  the  first 
minister,  and  one  for  the  support  of  the  town  school. 
The  remaining  fifty  rights  were  sold  to  the  highest 
bidders.  The  Court,  however,  fixed  certain  minimum 
prices  for  each  right,  ranging  from  30  to  60  pounds.    Cer- 

^  Col.  Rec,  VII,  387,  445. 

*  The  five  townships  on  the  east  side  of  the  river  were  Norfolk,  Canaan, 
Goshen,  Cornwall  and  Kent;  the  two  on  the  west  Sharon  and  Salisbury. 

'  Norfolk  at  Hartford,  Goshen  at  New  Haven,  Canaan  at  New  London, 
Cornwall  at  Fairfield,  Kent  at  Windham,  Salisbury  at  Hartford,  Sharon 
at  New  Haven.  All  the  townships  seem  to  have  found  purchasers  except 
Norfolk  which  was  not  finally  sold  until  nearly  twenty  years  later.  Col. 
Rec,  VIII,  135;  X,  .320. 

*  Salisbury  was  divided  into  twenty-five  rights. 


72  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

tain  restrictions  were  placed  upon  prospective  purchas- 
ers. They  were  required  to  be  inhabitants  of  the  colony, 
to  settle  themselves  or  their  agent  and  live  three  years 
in  the  town  in  which  they  purchased  land,  to  build  a  house 
of  certain  specified  dimensions,  and  clear  and  fence  at 
least  six  acres  of  land.^ 

The  method  thus  employed  of  distributing  the  public 
land  might  be  termed  the  ' '  eighteenth  century  plan, ' '  and 
from  it  developed  certain  characteristics  which  were 
markedly  different  from  those  of  land  system  in  the 
older  towns.  Perhaps  the  most  striking  distinction  in 
this  respect  between  the  older  and  later  towns,  was  the 
appearance  in  the  latter  of  absentee  proprietors,  and  the 
land  speculation  incident  to  such  proprietorship. 

In  the  older  towns  the  proprietors  were,  to  a  large  ex- 
tent, actual  settlers,  and  their  land  holdings  were  confined 
largely  to  the  town  in  which  they  lived.  In  the  towns 
formed  during  the  eighteenth  century,  however,  the  pro- 
prietors bought  land  in  a  township  having  no  intention  of 
settling  there.  The  land  was  purchased  merely  upon 
speculation,  and  it  was  common  to  find  a  large  part  of 
the  land  in  a  township  change  hands  before  any  settle- 
ment had  been  made.^  Proprietors'  meetings  were  held 
where  a  majority  of  the  proprietors  lived,  ^  and  this  was 
often  not  in  the  town  of  which  they  were  proprietors. 

1  Col.  Rec,  VIII,  1.34  et  seq. 

*  Not  one  of  the  106  original  proprietors  of  Winchester  ever  dwelt  in 
the  town,  and  only  one  son  of  a  proprietor  ever  had  a  permanent  residence 
there.  Boyd,  Annals  of  Winchester,  31.  Of  the  twelve  proprietors  of 
Union  only  one  was  an  actual  settler.  Lawson,  Hist,  of  Union,  39.  Of 
the  41  original  proprietors  of  Sharon  about  one  half  became  residents. 
Sedgwick,  Hist,  of  Sharon,  24.  In  1761  the  proprietors  certified  that  of 
the  25,000  acres  of  land  in  Cornwall  from  eleven  to  twelve  thousand  acres 
were  owned  by  non-residents.  MS.  Rec.  Towns  and  Lands,  VllI,  278.  See 
also  Orcutt,  Hist,  of  New  Milford,  70;  Atwater,  Hist,  of  Kent,  17;  MS. 
Proprietors  Rec.  of  New  Hartford,  11  et  seq. 

'  The  meetings  of  the  proprietors  of  New  Hartford  were  held  at  Hart- 
ford from  1732  to  1738.      The  first  meetings  of  the  Goshen  proprietors  were 


LAND   SYSTEM.  73 

The  distinction  between  the  proprietors'  meetings  and 
the  town  meetings,  and  their  spheres  of  activity,  were 
very  much  more  clearly  marked  in  the  towns  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  than  was  the  case  in  the  older  towns. 
Seldom  or  never  do  we  find  the  town  meetings  in  the 
later  towns  interfering  in  the  regulation  or  distribution 
of  the  common  land.  The  exclusive  right  of  the  pro- 
prietors to  deal  with  these  questions  was  generally  con- 
ceded from  the  outset.  Disputes  between  the  towns  and 
the  proprietors  did  arise,  but  these  were  usually  concern- 
ing the  right  of  the  town  to  tax  the  proprietary  lands.  ^ 
An  outcome  of  the  tendency  to  land  speculation  was  the 
delay  which  resulted  in  the  settlement  of  some  of  the 
towns.  Land  being  held  largely  for  a  speculative  in- 
crease in  value  and  not  for  actual  settlement,  long  periods 
of  time  elapsed  between  the  sale  of  a  township  and  its 
actual  settlement.^ 

The  proprietors  as  a  body,  in  the  later  as  in  the  older 
towns,  continued  their  activity  as  long  as  there  remained 
common  or  undivided  land.  At  first  their  meetings  were 
frequent,  but  as  the  successive  divisions  of  common  land 
constantly  diminished  their  holdings  in  severalty,  their 
activity  decreased  and  meetings  were  held  less  and  less 
frequently.^ 

held  at  Litchfield,  of  the  Cornwall  proprietors  at  Hartford,  of  Norfolk 
proprietors  at  Simsbury,  of  the  Canaan  proprietors  at  Wethersfield,  and 
of  the  Kent  proprietors  at  Windman.  MS.  Prop.  Rec.  of  New  Hartford, 
Norfolk  and  Canaan.  Hibbard,  Hist,  of  Goshen,  30;  Gold,  Hist,  of  Corn- 
wall, 20;  Atwater,  Hist,  of  Kent,  22. 

IMS.  Rec.  Towns  and  Lands,  III,  13G,  195;  MS.  Prop.  Rec.  of  New 
Hartford,  August  G,  1744;  Lawson,  Hist,  of  Union,  50. 

2  Winchester,  one  of  Hartford's  towns  in  the  Western  Lands,  was  not 
settled  or  divided  until  twenty-nine  years  after  the  division  of  the  Western 
Lands.  Boyd,  Annals  of  Winchester,  31.  It  was  nine  years  after  the  sale 
of  Union  before  any  attempt  was  made  to  divide  the  land  among  the  pro- 
prietors.     Lawson,  Hist,  of  Union,  38. 

3  Meetings  of  the  proprietors  of  Norfolk  were  held  regularly  twice,  or 
oftener,  a  year  until  17G8,  then  no  meeting  is  recorded  until  1804,  and  then 


74  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPOKATE    COLONY. 

Thus  far  in  the  treatment  of  the  land  system,  emphasis 
has  been  laid  merely  upon  the  question  of  administration. 
In  this  treatment  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  show 
that  the  activity  of  the  colonial  authorities  in  adminis- 
tering the  land  system  was  little  more  than  supervisory, 
while  the  real  direction  and  administration  of  the  land 
was  left  to  the  localities.  Furthermore  that  in  the  towns 
the  system  of  proprietary  administration  had  displaced 
the  town  administration  of  land  by  the  end  of  the  seven- 
teenth centur3\  The  system  of  proprietary  control  which 
became  general  during  the  eighteenth  century,  w^as  in  all 
essential  points  analogous  to  the  administration  of  the 
land  system  in  the  proprietary  provinces.^  The  pro- 
prietors in  the  Connecticut  towns  were  a  reproduction  on 
a  smaller  scale  of  the  proprietors  of  Maryland  and  Penn- 
sylvania. While  the  elaborate  administrative  machinery 
of  the  latter  did  not  appear  in  any  of  the  Connecticut 
towns,  still  the  aims  of  the  proprietors  in  each  case  were 
identical,  namely,  to  obtain  a  revenue  from  their  lands. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  manner  in  which  the  land 
of  a  township  was  distributed  among  the  individual  pro- 
prietors. Here  again  a  distinction  will  be  made  between 
the  earlier  and  later  towns. 

The  character  of  the  land  in  any  township  varied  ac- 
cording to  its  location  and  topography.  In  most  of  the 
older  towns  which  were  situated  on  or  near  rivers  or 
streams,  the  land  might  be  classified  roughly  under  the 
following  heads:  (1)  Meadow  or  marshy  land;  (2)  cleared 
upland;  (3)  uncleared  or  wooded  land.    Upon  the  cleared 

at  intervals  of  ten  years  or  more  until  1S5G.  Meetings  of  the  Canaan  pro- 
prietors were  held  at  intervals  of  two  or  three  months  until  17()5,  then 
irregularly  until  1804.  MS.  Prop.  Rec.  of  Norfolk  and  Canaan.  See  also 
Caulkins,  Hist,  of  New  London,  263;  Allen,  Hist,  of  Enfield,  I,  92;  Steiner, 
Hist,  of  Guilford,  175. 

J  Osgood,  American  Colonies,  II,  10  et  seq. 


LAND    SYSTEM.  75 

upland  was  usually  located  the  town  plot,  home  lots,  and 
planting  grounds.  The  meadow  furnished  hay  and  pas- 
turage, while  in  the  wooded  land  were  pastured  the  swine, 
sheep  and  young  cattle.^ 

The  first  step  in  the  settlement  of  a  town  was  the  laying 
out  of  the  town  plot  and  the  assignment  of  home  lots. 
This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  often  done  by  a  committee  of 
the  General  Court.^  The  home  lots  varied  greatly  in  size 
in  the  different  towns,  and  often  within  the  same  town. 
In  Guilford  they  ranged  from  1  to  10  acres;  in  Wall- 
ingford  and  Enfield  they  were  uniformly  10  or  12  acres; 
in  Litchfield  15  acres,  while  in  Woodbury  the  inhabitants 
were  divided  into  six  "ranks,"  the  home  lots  of  the  differ- 
ent ranks  being  25,  20,  18,  16,  12  and  10  acres.  ^  Generally 
the  location  of  a  person's  home  lot  was  determined  by 
chance,  but  not  infrequently  the  minister  or  other  promi- 
nent settler  would  be  allowed  first  choice.'*  After  the 
.home  lots  had  been  granted,  the  upland  and  meadow  was 
subject  to  grant.  Here  again  the  division  was  usually 
made  by  lot.  The  circumstances  which  determined  the 
size  of  a  person's  home  lot,  as  well  as  his  share  of  meadow 
and  upland,  varied  in  different  towns.  Occasionally, 
though  not  often,  a  rigid  equality  was  observed  in  the 
assignment  of  home  lots  and  other  land.^  Generally,  in 
the  earlier  divisions,  an  attempt  was  made  to  proportion 
a  person's  share  to  his  investment,  or  activity  in  forming 
the  plantation,  or  his  ability  to  advance  the  interests  of 
the  community.  As  time  passed,  the  amount  of  a  per- 
son's taxable  estate  became  the  common  index  for  de- 

^  Osgood,  American  Colonies,  I,  437. 

^Col.  Rec,  II,  210;  V,  55,  160. 

'Steiner,  Hist,  of  Guilford,  49;  Davis,  Hist,  of  Wallingford,  81;  Wood- 
ruff, Hist,  of  Litchfield,  18;  Allen,  Hist,  of  Enfield,  I,  passim;  Cothren, 
Hist,  of  Ancient  Woodbury,  39. 

*  Caulkins,  Hist,  of  New  London,  59. 

5  Col.  Rec,  V,  55,  121;  Andrews,  Three  River  Towns,  J.  H.  U.  8.,  VII. 


76  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

termining  his  share  in  the  undivided  lands.  ^  In  Walling- 
ford  the  whole  population  was  divided  into  three  "ranks." 
The  persons  in  the  first  **rank"  paid  double  the  amount 
of  taxes  of  those  in  the  lowest ' '  rank, ' '  and  one  third  more 
than  those  of  the  middle  ' '  rank. ' '  Land  was  then  divided 
among  the  ranks  in  the  proportion  of  4,  6,  and  8.^  In 
Guilford,  in  the  fourth  division  of  land,  the  rule  was  that 
there  should  be  given  one  acre  of  land  for  every  pound  in 
the  list,  18  acres  for  each  male  child,  and  10  acres  for  each 
woman  or  female  child.^ 

There  appeared  in  some  of  the  towns  a  desire  to  prevent 
too  large  an  accumulation  of  lands  in  the  hands  of  a  few 
persons.  In  the  "Articles  of  Association  and  Agree- 
ment," entered  into  by  the  planters  of  Waterbury,  it  was 
provided  that  no  person  should  subscribe  to  more  than 
100  pounds'  allotment.^  In  Guilford  it  was  provided 
that  no  one  should  put  in  his  estate  above  500  pounds  to 
"require  accommodation  in  any  division  of  lands. "^ 

Seldom,  or  never,  was  all  the  undivided  land  of  a  town 
granted  in  one  division;  successive  divisions  were  made 
as  occasion  demanded.  As  a  result  it  was  common  to 
find  a  person's  estate  distributed  about  the  town  in  a 
number  of  small  tracts.^ 

Besides  the  regular  division  of  land  in  which  all,  or 
a  majority,  of  the  inhabitants  shared  a  large  number  of 
individual  grants  appear  in  the  records  of  the  diiferent 
towns.     These  grants  were  made  sometimes  to  accommo- 

1  Norwalk  Town  Records,  December  12,  1687 ;  Andrews,  Three  River 
Town,  J.  U.  U.  S.,  VII;  Lamed,  Hist,  of  Windham  Co.,  I,  37. 

2  Davis,  Hist,  of  Wallingford,  81. 

3  Steiner,  Hist,  of  Guilford,  173. 

*  Bronson,  Hist,  of  Waterbury,  8. 
5  Steiner,  Hist,  of  Guilford,  49. 

*  One  Isaac  Gleason  possessed  some  twelve  separate  portions  of  land 
in  different  parts  of  the  township  of  Enfield.  Allen,  Hist,  of  Enfield,  I, 
137  et  seq. ;  Compare  Osgood,  American  Colonies,  I,  449. 


LAND    SYSTEM.  77 

date  new  settlers,  at  others  to  equalize  a  person's  share 
in  a  regular  division  because  of  deficiency  in  the  quality 
of  the  land,  and  again  to  poor  settlers  that  did  not  share 
in  the  general  distribution.^ 

A  result  of  the  manner  of  dividing  land  which  has 
just  been  described  was  that  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
land  would  remain  for  a  greater  or  less  period  of  time 
undivided.  The  fencing  and  regulation  of  this  common 
land  was  an  important  function  of  the  town  or  proprie- 
tors' meetings.  Furthermore,  it  was  customary,  when  a 
given  portion  of  common  land  had  been  divided  among 
the  proprietors,  to  allow  the  land  to  remain  in  one  com- 
mon field.  Each  owner  improved  his  own  part  of  the 
common  field  in  his  own  way,  and  after  the  crops  had  been 
removed,  it  was  the  custom  to  depasture  the  field,  allowing 
each  owner  to  turn  in  a  number  of  cattle  proportioned  to 
his  acreage  of  land  in  the  field.^  Of  the  common  fence 
each  proprietor  was  required  to  build  and  keep  in  repair 
an  amount  proportioned  to  the  amount  of  his  holding  in 
the  field.  The  fences  were  viewed  at  regular  intervals  by 
fence  viewers,  and  fines  were  imposed  on  those  proprietors 
who  failed  to  keep  their  portion  in  repair.^  Besides  the 
proprietary  fields  which  lay  in  common,  there  were  the 
town  '' commons."  The  latter  were  certain  amounts  of 
land  sequestered  by  vote  of  the  town  or  proprietors  for 
the  use  of  the  town  generally.  These  commons  furnished 
pasturage,  firewood,  timber,  stone,  etc.,  to  the  inhabitants 
of  the  town  without  any  reference  to  their  proprietary 
ownership.  These  commons  were  maintained  in  some 
towns  for  many  years,  but  finally  were  divided  as  the 

1  Hartford  Tovm  Votes,  197,  212,  238;  Derby  Rec,  28,  29,  78,  etc.; 
Allen,  Hist,  of  Enfield,  I,  283. 

'Adams-Stiles,  Hist,  of  Wethersfield,  I,  113;  Eggleston,  Land  System 
of  the  New  England  Colonies,  J.  H.  U.  8.,  IV,  594. 

'  Steiner,  Hist,  of  Guilford,  246.  See  a  good  description  of  common 
fields  and  fences  in  Bronson,  Hist,  of  Waterburj',  47  et  seq. 


78  COXNECTICUT    AS    A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

other  proprietary  lands. ^  The  maintenance  of  common 
herds  and  herdsmen  was  a  characteristic  accompaniment 
of  the  system  of  common  fields.  The  cattle  and  sheep  of 
a  town  were  placed  in  one  or  more  herds  under  the  charge 
of  regularly  chosen  town  herdsmen  and  shepherds.^ 

An  interesting  feature  of  the  land  system  of  the  older 
towns  was  the  restrictions  which  were  placed  upon  the 
right  of  an  individual  to  alienate  his  land.  As  the  entire 
right  of  commoners  both  in  the  divided  and  undivided 
lands  might  be  sold  or  transferred,  it  was  deemed  neces- 
sary in  order  to  prevent  undesirable  persons  from  becom- 
ing land  holders  and  possible  inhabitants  of  the  town,  to 
restrict  the  right  of  a  person  to  dispose  of  his  land  at 
will.  In  1659  the  General  Court  provided  that  no  person 
should  sell  his  land  until  he  had  first  offered  it  to  the 
town  in  which  the  land  lay,  and  the  town  had  refused  to 
purchase  it.^  To  this  general  enactment  the  towns  added 
other  restrictions.  From  the  first,  Hartford  had  required 
the  consent  of  the  town  to  the  sale  of  lands. ^  In  Enfield 
a  person  was  required  to  occupy  his  grant  of  land  seven 

^Adams-Stiles,  Hist,  of  Wethersfield,  I,  113  et  seq.;  Bronson,  Hist,  of 
Waterbury,  79  et  seq.  An  interesting  controversy  occurred  over  the 
division  of  the  town  commons  in  Hartford  in  1754.  The  descendants  and 
successors  of  the  "  Ancient  Proprietors  "  claimed  the  right  to  divide  the 
commons  among  themselves,  and  proceeded  to  lay  out  a  division.  The 
"  Inhabitants  Proprietors,"  or  tax  paying  inhabitants,  disputed  this 
division  and  proceeded  to  lay  out  the  commons  to  the  taxable  inhabitants. 
This  soon  produced  a  number  of  suits  in  the  courts  to  determine  the 
title.  After  various  decisions,  generally  in  favor  of  the  Ancient  Pro- 
prietors, a  compromise  was  reached  by  which  the  town  purchased  the 
rights  of  the  Ancient  Proprietors.  The  land  was  then  distributed,  prob- 
ably, among  the  taxable  inhabitants.  MS.  Documents  in  the  library  of 
the  Conn.  Hist.  Soc. 

"In  New  London  the  cattle  were  placed  in  two  herds  each  with  a 
keeper.  Caulkins,  Hist,  of  New  London,  82.  See  also  Allen,  Hist,  of 
Enfield,  I,  328;  Steiner,  Hist  of  Guilford,  240. 

'Col.  Rec,  I,  351. 

*  Hartford,  Town  Votes,  Februarv  21,  1636. 


LAND    SYSTEM.  79 

years,  and  also  obtain  the  consent  of  the  town  before  he 
could  sell  it.^ 

Coming  now  to  the  divisions  of  land  in  the  towns  formed 
during  the  eighteenth  century.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  it  was  usual  during  the  eighteenth  century  for  the 
General  Court  to  sell  townships  instead  of  freely  grant- 
ing them.  These  townships,  as  we  have  seen,  were  usu- 
ally divided  into  a  certain  number  of  "rights,"  each 
right  entitling  the  purchaser  to  an  equal  share  in  the 
land  of  the  township.  Thus  the  basis  for  the  division  of 
land  was  exclusively  investment,  not  ability  or  taxable 
estate,  as  had  been  common  in  the  older  towns.  Naturally 
this  resulted  in  much  greater  uniformity  in  the  size  of 
home  lots  and  other  holdings.  The  successive  divisions 
of  land  followed  each  other  with  greater  rapidity  in  the 
later  than  in  the  older  towns.^  The  frequent  transfer  of 
land  holdings  was  a  feature  of  the  land  system-  in  the 
towns  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Ofter,  an  entirely  new 
set  of  proprietors  would  participate  in  the  third  and  later 
divisions  of  common  lands,  than  had  taken  part  in  the 
first  division.  Common  fields,  fences,  and  herds  were 
much  less  a  feature  of  the  town  economy  of  the  later  than 
of  the  earlier  towns.  This  was  due  in  part  to  the  fact 
that  the  colonists  had  emerged  from  the  primitive  condi- 
tions of  land  cultivation,  but  more  largely  to  the  fact 
that  in  many  of  the  later  towns  the  proprietors  being 
non-residents  or  speculators,  did  not  improve  their 
holdings. 

1  Allen,  Hist,  of  Enfield,  I,  62.  See  similar  provisions.  Caulkins,  Hist, 
of  Norwich,  102;  Davis,  Hist,  of  Wallingford,  80;  Cothren,  Hist,  of 
Ancient  Woodbury,  40. 

2  There  were  twelve  divisions  in  Canaan,  eight  of  them  in  the  first 
seven  years  after  the  settlement  of  the  town.  In  Norfolk  there  were  eight 
divisions,  in  New  Hartford  five,  in  Kent  ten  and  New  Milford  fourteen, 
most  of  them  at  short  intervals.  MS.  Prop.  Rec.  of  Canaan,  Norfolk  and 
New  Hartford;  Atwater,  Hist,  of  Kent,  17;  Orcutt,  Hist,  of  New  Mil- 
ford,  13. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

Military  Affairs. 

The  organization  and  administration  of  the  militia  was 
one  of  the  many  functions  of  the  Legislature.  Prior  to 
the  formation  of  the  Fundamental  Orders,  the  Massachu- 
setts committee  had  assumed  as  full  control  over  military 
as  over  civil  affairs.  Watches  were  ordered,  the  posses- 
sion of  arms  and  ammunition  was  required,  and  regular 
trainings  were  instituted.^  The  ''Courte"  which  dis- 
placed the  Commission,  likewise  exercised  full  sway  in 
military  affairs.  Its  first  act  was  to  declare  ' '  an  offensiue 
war"  against  the  Pequot  Indians.^  The  ''Fundamental 
Orders"  did  not  specify  the  regulation  of  military  affairs 
as  one  of  the  functions  of  the  General  Court,  but  it  was 
comprehended  under  the  general  grant  of  power  * '  to  make 
laws  and  repeal  them."  The  terms  of  the  charter  were 
more  specific  in  dealing  with  this  subject.  It  was  stated 
that  the  ''Chief  Commanders,  Governors  and  Officers" 
of  the  colony  could  assemble  "in  Warlike  posture"  the 
inhabitants ;  appoint  and  commission  officers  to  command 
them;  repel  invasion  by  sea  and  land,  and  declare  mar- 
tial law  when  occasion  should  require.^  It  will  be  noted 
that  a  strict  interpretation  of  these  provisions  would  place 
the  control  of  the  militia  in  the  hands  of  the  executive, 
and  such  it  would  be  reasonable  to  suppose  was  the  in- 
tention of  the  authorities  in  England.  In  the  colony  no 
such  meaning  was  placed  upon  the  words,  and  the  power 

'  Col.  Rec,  I,  2,  3,  4. 
•  Ibid.,  I,  9. 
^  Ibid.,  II,  9. 

80 


MILITARY   AFFAIRS.  81 

of  the  Legislature  in  the  administration  of  military  affairs 
was  in  no  respect  lessened. 

In  times  of  actual  conflict,  the  General  Court  found  it 
necessary  to  delegate  its  powers  of  military  administration 
to  special  committees  or  ''Councils  of  War."  The  first 
mention  of  such  a  body  was  in  1663,  when  the  General 
Court,  in  anticipation  of  trouble  with  the  Dutch  at  New 
York,  appointed  a  committee  to  act  '*in  all  necessary 
concernments,  both  military  and  civil,"  in  the  interval  of 
the  General  Court.  In  strictness  this  was  not  distinctly  a 
' '  Council  of  War. '  '^  Again  in  1665  the  General  Court  ap- 
pointed a  committee,  in  anticipation  of  a  Dutch  invasion,^ 
to  order  the  militia  in  the  interval  of  the  court.  The  follow- 
ing year  a  similar  committee  was  appointed.  These  were 
called  ''Committees  of  the  Militia,"  and  there  appears 
to  have  been  at  least  one  such  committee  in  each  country.^ 
The  threatened  invasion  did  not  materialize,  and  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  committees  were  called  upon  to  perform 
any  important  duties.  In  1673,  once  more  in  anticipation  of 
war  with  the  Dutch,  the  first  distinct  ' '  Councell  of  Warr ' ' 
was  created.  It  was  composed  of  the  Governor  or  Deputy 
Governor,  and  assistants,  with  five  military  officers.  It  was 
empowered  to  establish  and  commission  officers,  proclaim 
martial  law,  and  to  organize  and  direct  the  contemplated 
expedition  to  Long  Island.^  During  Philip's  war,  the 
Council  of  War  seems  to  have  been  merged  in  the  Gov- 
ernor's Council,  which  took  an  active  part  in  directing  the 

'  For  the  sake  of  clearness  it  might  be  well  to  note  again  the  distinction 
between  the  Governor's  Council  and  the  Council  of  War.  Both  might  and 
did  exist  at  the  same  time.  The  latter  was  created  only  in  times  of 
danger  and  had  purely  military  powers,  while  the  former  existed  in  both 
peace  and  war  and  might  exercise  both  military  and  civil  powers.  Col. 
Rec,  IV,  442. 

*  This  was  the  threatened  invasion  of  De  Ruyter.  Smith,  Hist,  of  New 
York,  I,  37. 

'Col.  Rec,  11,21,  44,  69,  182. 

*Ibid.,  II,  219,  220. 


82  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

military  operations  during  that  struggle.  This  was  true 
also  during  the  first  of  the  intercolonial  wars.^  At  the 
opening  of  the  second  intercolonial  war,  however,  a  dis- 
tinct Council  of  War  again  appears.^  In  1704  were  cre- 
ated County  "Committees  of  Safety"  which  were  em- 
powered to  ''consult,  advise,  direct  and  comand  in  all 
affairs  proper  for  a  comittee  of  saftie  in  time  of  warre." 
These  committees  appear  to  have  looked  to  the  particular 
defence  of  the  county  frontier.^  During  the  third  and 
fourth  intercolonial  wars,  both  the  general  and  county 
councils  continue  as  a  feature  of  the  military  ad- 
ministration.'* 

While  the  powers  conferred  upon  the  various  commit- 
tees or  councils  were  broad,  they  were  always  under  the 
control  and  direction  of  the  General  Court.  The  latter, 
when  in  session,  was  constantly  active  in  disposing  and 
directing  the  militarj^  forces,  and  issuing  orders  to  the 
Council  of  War.^ 

In  connection  with  the  control  and  direction  of  the 
colonial  militia,  an  interesting  and  important  controversy 
arose  toward  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  which 
continued  at  intervals  throughout  the  colonial  period.  As 
will  be  seen,  the  wars  in  which  the  colony  was  involved 
during  the  first  fifty  years  of  its  history,  were  merely  local 
Indian  struggles,  which,  at  most,  required  only  the  com- 
bined activity  of  the  New  England  colonies.  With  these 
wars  the  authorities  in  England  were  not  immediately 
concerned.    No  aid  was  received  from  the  mother  country, 

>  Ibid.,  II,  261,  270,  etc.;  IV,  G,  14,  18,  etc. 

2  Ibid.,  IV,  442,  458. 

'  In  appointing  the  Committee  of  War  for  Hartford  Co.,  the  General 
Court  stated  that  it  should  have  power  to  send  out  what  soldiers  were 
needful,  not  exceeding  sixty  except  in  case  of  invasion,  to  defend  the 
frontiers  and  to  appoint  oflicers  for  such  soldiers.      Col.  Rec,  V,  33. 

*  Ibid.,  IX,  30,  75;  X,  319,  334. 
Ibid.,  IV,  349;  V,  85;  IX,  71. 


MILITARY   AFFAIES.  83 

and  no  attempt  was  made  by  the  home  government  to  direct 
the  military  affairs  of  the  colonies,  either  by  an  appoint- 
ment of  a  commander-in-chief  or  by  the  dispatch  of  instruc- 
tions. The  colonists  were  left  alone  to  work  out  their  own 
salvation.  With  the  advent  of  the  intercolonial  wars  in  the 
last  decade  of  the  seventeenth  century,  however,  a  wholly 
different  condition  of  affairs  appeared.  These  wars  were 
much  more  than  purely  local  struggles  affecting  New 
England.  Besides  being  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  any 
of  the  previous  wars,  they  were  destined  to  decide  the 
colonial  supremacy  of  two  of  the  leading  European  na- 
tions. In  these  wars  the  authorities  in  England  took  an 
immediate  and  active  interest.  At  the  outset  it  became 
apparent  that  any  efficient  military  activities  requiring 
long  and  continued  service  would  be  impracticable,  if  not 
impossible,  under  the  system  of  divided  authority  which 
obtained  in  the  colonies,  and  particularly  in  the  corporate 
colonies  of  New  England,  where  there  were  no  royal 
officials  to  carry  out  the  orders  of  the  home  government. 
With  a  view  to  obtaining  some  measure  of  cooperation 
among  these  colonies,  at  the  opening  of  the  first  inter- 
colonial war  Governor  Fletcher,  of  New  York,  and  Gov- 
ernor Phips,  of  Massachusetts,  were  authorized  to  com- 
mand the  militia  of  Connecticut.^  Phips  did  not  seek  to 
enforce  this  part  of  his  commission,  and  it  was  soon  with- 
drawn.2  Fletcher  was  more  persevering.  He  arrived  in 
New  York  in  1692,  and  came  to  Hartford  in  October  of 
the  following  year,  to  publish  his  commission.  The  de- 
mand of  Fletcher  was  submitted  to  the  General  Court 

*  Trumbull,  op.  cit.,  I,  Appendix  XXV;  R.  I.  Col.  Rec,  III,  296;  Docu- 
ments Relating  to  the  Colonial  History  of  N.  Y.,  Ill,  827. 

*  Phips  wrote  to  the  Governor  of  Connecticut  acquainting  him  with  his 
commission,  and  the  Court  answered,  that  having  received  no  commands 
from  his  Majesty  concerning  the  matter,  they  would  maintain  their 
chartered  rights.     Col.  Rec,  IV,  77;  MS.  Rec.  War,  II,  158,  159,  162. 


84  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE    COLONY. 

then  in  session,  which  body  replied,  * '  that  finding  in  your 
Excellencies  Commission  no  Express,  Su}3erseding  of  the 
Commission  of  the  Militia  in  our  Charter  ...  we  cannot 
but  conceive  it  our  duty  ...  to  continue  the  militia  as 
formerly;  till  by  our  Agent  now  sent  for  in  England,  we 
shall  receive  further  Orders  from  Their  Majesties,  "^  The 
determined  stand  taken  by  the  colonists  caused  Fletcher 
to  attempt  to  conciliate  them.  He  offered  to  place  the 
command  of  the  militia  under  Governor  Treat,  and  further 
stated  that  *'he  has  neither  the  power  or  intention  to  in- 
vade any  of  their  civil  rights,"  but  added  that  "I  may 
assure  you  that  I  will  not  set  a  foot  out  of  the  colony  till 
I  see  an  obedience  paid  to  this  commission  by  all  such  as 
are  loyal  subjects  of  his  majesty,  and  will  distinguish  the 
rest."^  There  is  a  more  than  doubtful  tradition  related 
by  Trumbull  of  the  strenuous  manner  in  which  Fletcher 
was  treated.^  However,  the  Colonel  reached  the  conclu- 
sion that  it  would  be  useless  to  force  the  matter  further, 
and  he  returned  to  Xew  York  without  having  accomplished 
his  object. 

In  the  meantime  Fitz  John  AVinthrop  had  gone  to 
England  to  petition  the  King  to  allow  Connecticut  to  re- 
tain control  of  her  militia.^  Within  a  few  weeks  the 
Privy  Council,  on  advice  of  the  Lords  of  Trade,  limited 
Fletcher's  right  over  the  Connecticut  troops  to  the  extent 
of  including  in  his  command,  120  men  to  be  furnished  by 
Connecticut  "at  all  times  during  the  war. "^ 

1  Col.  Rec,  IV,  113. 

^Ibid.,  IV,  114. 

3  Trumbull,  I,  393.  Compare  Palfrey,  Hist,  of  New  England,  226  note; 
Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  X.  Y.,  IV,  69  et  seq.;  Calendar  of  State 
Papers,  America,  169.3-1096,  particularly  Col.  Bayard's  account  of 
Fletcher's  proceedings  at  Hartford. 

*  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  ibid.,  277 ;  Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of 
N.  Y.,  IV,  102;  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  5th  Series,  VIII,  327,  330. 

5  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  ibid.,  283;  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  5th  Series, 
IX,  176;  Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  X.  Y.,  103  et  seq. 


MHilTAKY   ATFAIBS.  85 

Lord  Bellomont's  commission,^  like  those  of  Phips  and 
Fletcher,  included  the  command  of  the  Connecticut  militia, 
but  he  made  no  attempt  to  enforce  this  part  of  his  com- 
mission. In  most,  if  not  all,  the  commissions  of  the  suc- 
ceeding Governors  of  New  York,  a  clause  was  inserted 
vesting  in  them  the  command  of  the  Connecticut  militia. 
Usually  the  Governors  made  no  attempt  to  enforce  this 
power.  Occasionally,  however,  the  matter  was  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  Connecticut  officials.  Lord  Corn- 
bury,  in  a  letter  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  asked  for  a  com- 
mission to  nominate  the  militia  officers  of  Connecticut, 
and  also  suggested  that  an  act  of  Parliament  be  passed 
for  regulating  the  militia  in  all  the  colonies.'^  Neither 
of  these  suggestions  was  acted  upon  by  the  home  govern- 
ment. Governor  Burnet,  in  1722,  seems  to  have  sent  a 
demand  for  the  command  of  the  militia,  but  with  no  ap- 
parent result.^  As  late  as  1766  we  find  Governor  Moore, 
of  New  York,  attempting  to  enforce  this  part  of  his  com- 
mission, only  to  meet  with  as  little  success  as  his  pre- 
decessors.'* 

The  possession  of  arms  and  ammunition  by  all  adult 
males,  and,  with  some  exceptions,  universal  military  ser- 
vice lay  at  the  basis  of  the  militia  system  of  the  colony.' 

'  New  Hampshire  Prov,  Papers,  II,  343.  Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist, 
of  N.  Y.,  IV,  261. 

*Doc.  Rel,  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  IV,  884,  912;  V,  60. 

»Col.  Rec,  VI,  334;  MS.  Rec.  War,  III,  177. 

*  Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  VII,  818,  819. 

6  At  first  all  male  persons  between  the  ages  of  sixteen  and  sixty,  except 
Commissioners  and  church  officers,  were  required  to  train.  Thfe  following 
exemptions  were  later  made.  Deputies  to  the  General  Court  during  their 
term  of  service,  constant  seafaring  men,  Indians  and  negro  servants, 
assistants,  clerks  of  the  trained-bands,  transient  persons,  persons  over  fifty- 
five  years  of  age  (later  fifty  years),  allowed  attorneys,  the  rector  and 
students  of  Yale  college,  justices  of  the  peace,  masters  of  art,  allowed 
physicians  and  surgeons,  schoolmasters,  one  miller  for  each  grist  mill, 
constant  herdsmen,  sheriffs,  constables,  constant  ferrymen,  lame  or  other 
disabled  persons.  Col.  Rec,  I,  15,  62,  316,  349,  350;  II,  229;  III,  83;  V, 
83;  VII,  344;  VIII,  36,  379. 


86  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPOKATE   COLONY. 

During  the  early  years  of  the  colony's  history,  the  expense 
of  furnishing  arms  and  ammunition  to  the  militia  fell 
upon  the  individual  or  the  locality  where  he  resided.^ 
Large  numbers  of  enactments  might  be  cited,  which  aimed 
to  enforce  the  possession  of  arms  and  ammunition  in  the 
various  towns.  With  the  advent  of  the  larger  military 
activities  of  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  and  eight- 
eenth centuries,  the  duty  of  supplying  of  arms  and  ammu- 
nition became  more  and  more  a  function  of  the  colonial 
authorities. 

The  earliest  and  throughout  the  most  important  branch 
of  the  militia  was  the  "trained  bands"  or  infantry  com- 
panies. At  first  all  persons  in  a  town,  liable  for  military 
service,  were  formed  into  the  ' '  trained  band ' '  of  the  town. 
"With  the  increase  in  population,  the  militia  in  the  larger 
towns  was  divided  into  two  or  more  companies.^  There 
appeared  to  be  considerable  pride,  possibly  some  jeal- 
ousy, concerning  the  precedence  of  the  "trained  bands" 
of  the  different  towns.  In  1662  the  General  Court  or- 
dered that  the  Hartford  "trained  band"  should  have  the 
"prehemenence"  of  all  the  companies  in  the  colony;  fol- 
lowed by  the  companies  of  Windsor,  Wethersfield  and 
Farmington  in  the  order  named.  ^  In  1674  it  was  pro- 
vided that  the  trained  bands  of  the  county  towns  should 
rank  first  in  the  county,  except  where  the  Major  should 

1  At  first  every  person  liable  to  military  service  was  required  to  have 
»  musket,  bandoleers,  two  pounds  of  powder  and  one  hundred  and  twenty 
bullets.  Col.  Rec.  I,  3,  15,  542.  The  match-lock  and  pike,  which  were  the 
weapons  in  common  use  at  first,  had  almost  disappeared  by  the  end  of  the 
seventeenth  centurj',  being  displaced  by  the  fire-lock  musket,  carbines  and 
pistols.      Osgood,  op.  cit.,  I;  Col.  Rec,  VIll,  379. 

2  The  trained-band,  eventually,  came  to  consist  of  sixty-four  men  be- 
sides officers.  If  there  was  more  than  one  company  in  a  town  they  were 
often  called  the  East  Company,  West  Company,  etc.  Col.  Rec,  VIII,  381; 
MS.  Rec.  Militia,  I,  passim. 

3  Col.  Rec,  1,  390. 


MILITARY   AFFAIRS.  87 

have  a  **peculyer"  company,  in  which  case  it  should 
lead  at  all  general  musters.^ 

The  first  mention  of  troopers  in  Connecticut  was  in 
1657,  when  the  Court  authorized  the  listing  of  such  as 
desired  to  form  a  troop  of  horse.  The  following  year 
some  thirty-seven  names  of  persons  living  in  the  three 
towns  of  Hartford,  Windsor  and  Wethersfield,  were 
presented  to  the  Court  and  confirmed  as  troopers. ^ 
There  was  no  considerable  increase  in  the  number  of 
troopers  during  the  seventeenth  century.  In  1680  there 
were  but  sixty  in  the  whole  colony,  although  it  was 
stated  that  plans  had  been  formed  for  raising  three 
more  troops  of  forty  men  each,  one  in  each  county.^  By 
the  general  act  reorganizing  the  militia,  adopted  in  1739, 
it  was  provided  that  there  should  be  a  troop  of  not  more 
than  sixty-four  men,  including  officers,  attached  to  each 
of  the  thirteen  regiments  into  which  the  militia  was 
divided.  Besides  the  regular  troopers,  mention  is  made 
of  dragoons.  These  appear  to  have  been  certain  picked 
men  mounted  for  special  service  in  times  of  danger.* 

As  early  as  1642  we  find  the  General  Court  providing 
an  ^'Artillary  Yard"  where  the  artillery  company  should 
train.  The  records  are  silent  as  to  the  character  and  size 
of  this  body,  and  it  probably  soon  disappeared  as  a  sepa- 
rate organization.^ 

»  Col.  Rec,  II,  238. 

*  Ibid.,  I,  299,  309.  In  New  Haveii  there  had  been  one  small  troop  of 
horse  which  seems  to  have  disappeared  after  the  union  with  the  River 
Towns.  N.  H.  Col.  Rec,  II,  173,  218,  302,  etc.  The  equipment  of  a 
trooper  consisted  of  a  horse,  saddle,  bridle,  holsters,  carbine,  belt  and 
swivel,  a  case  of  pistols,  a  sword  or  cutlass,  flask  or  cartridge-box,  one 
pound  of  powder,  twenty  flints,  a  pair  of  boots  and  spurs.  Col.  Rec, 
VIII,  380. 

3  Col.  Rec,  III,  295;  MS.  Rec  Foreign  Correspondence,  I,  19. 

«Col.  Rec,  II,  267;  IV,  19. 

5  Col.  Rec,  I,  71.  In  New  Haven  there  had  been  an  auxiliary  company 
of  artillery  which  probably  disappeared  after  the  union.  Levermore,  The 
Republic  of  New  Haven,  J.  H.  U.  8.,  VI,  56. 


88  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

The  officers  of  the  trained  bands  and  troops  were 
chosen  by  the  members  of  the  company  or  troop,  and  con- 
firmed by  the  General  Court. ^  Some  special  mention 
needs  to  be  made  of  the  duties  of  the  clerk.  He  it  was 
that  called  the  roll  of  the  company  on  training  days,  noted 
any  defects  in  arms  and  ammunition,  and  distrained  fines 
for  any  defects.  He  was  required  to  keep  a  list  of  the 
soldiers  and  officers  in  his  company,  and  report  the  same 
to  the  chief  county  officer,  and  later  to  the  chief  regimental 
officer.2 

During  the  seventeenth  century,  the  militia  of  Con- 
necticut was  not  distinctly  regimented.  Just  before  the 
opening  of  King  Philip's  War,  however,  the  trained 
bands  in  each  county  were  combined  for  purposes  of  gen- 
eral training,  and  the  combined  forces  were  spoken  of  as 
*' regiments. "  These  general  trainings  were  under  the 
direction  of  Majors,  who  were,  practically,  regimental 
officers.^ 

During  the  Andros  regime  no  material  change  was 
made  in  the  organization  of  the  militia,  except  that 
Andros  assumed  supreme  command  of  all  the  military 
forces.  For  some  reason  not  apparent,  there  seemed  to 
be  a  prejudice  against  any  reorganization  of  the  militia 
which  would  disturb  the  time-honored  trained  bands  of 
the  towns.  Possibly  it  was  local  pride  or  jealousy  which 
blocked  the  way  to  a  more  efficient  organization  of  the 
colonial  militia.  All  explanations  must,  however,  be 
largely  conjectures,  for  the  records  throw  no  light  on  the 
matter. 

'Col.  Rec,  I,  151.  The  officers  of  an  infantry  company  were,  usually, 
a  captain,  lieutenant,  ensign,  one  or  more  sergeants  and  corporals,  and  a 
clerk.  The  officers  of  a  troop  were  a  captain,  lieutenant,  ensign,  cornet, 
quartermaster,  sergeants,  corporals,  and  a  clerk.      Col.  Rec,  VIII,  381-383. 

''Ibid.,  I,  542;  V,  165;  VIII,  379. 

*  Col.  Rec,  II,  238.  There  appeared  also  the  Sergeant  Majors,  who 
occupied  the  position  of  Lieutenant  Colonel.  Col.  Rec,  III,  61;  IV,  51; 
Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  IV,  357. 


MrLITARY   ATFAIES.  89 

In  1722  the  question  of  the  appointment  of  Colonels 
and  Lieutenant  Colonels  in  the  different  counties  was  con- 
sidered by  the  General  Court.  The  matter  was  however 
laid  over  until  the  following  session,  when  no  further 
action  seems  to  have  been  taken. ^  Between  1722  and 
1727  a  number  of  attempts  were  made  to  regiment  the 
militia,  but  they  were  usually  defeated  in  the  Upper 
House.^  Again  in  1735  a  definite  plan  for  dividing  the 
militia  into  thirteen  regiments,  proposed  by  a  joint  com- 
mittee of  the  two  houses,  was  voted  down  in  both  houses.^ 
It  was  not  until  the  threatened  outbreak  of  the  third 
intercolonial  war  (1739)  that  the  act  reorganizing  the 
militia  system  was  adopted  by  the  General  Court.*  This 
act  provided  that  the  Governor  should  be  Captain  Gen- 
eral, and  the  Deputy  Governor,  Lieutenant  General  of 
all  the  military  forces  of  the  colony.  The  militia  was 
divided  into  thirteen  regiments,  each  commanded  by  a 
Colonel,  Lieutenant  Colonel  and  Major,  appointed  by  the 
Assembly,  and  commissioned  by  the  Governor.  To  each 
regiment  was  to  be  attached  a  troop  of  horse  not  exceed- 
ing sixty-four  men  and  officers. 

With  the  increase  in  population,  and  the  settlement  of 
new  towns,  additional  regiments  were  formed.  In  1767 
the  fourteenth  regiment  was  organized,  in  1769  the 
fifteenth,  in  1771  the  sixteenth,  and  in  1774  the  seven- 
teenth, eighteenth,  nineteenth,  twentieth,  twenty-first  and 
twenty-second.^ 

The  duty  of  supplying  arms  and  ammunition  to  the 
soldiers,  in  times  of  war,  devolved  upon  the  Treasurer.^ 

'  Col.  Rec,  VI,  335,  361. 

'MS.  Rec.  Militia,  I,  202,  210,  303,  349,  362. 

» Col.  Rec,  VIII,  277  note. 

*Ibid.,  VIII,  277. 

'Ibid.,  XII,  607;  XIII,  238,  512;  XIV,  261,  328. 

6  Ibid.,  II,  464;  IV,  349;  V,  85;  IX,  71. 


90  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

The  same  ofl&cer  generally  performed  the  duty  of  Com- 
missary General  in  distributing  food  to  the  soldiers/  It 
was  customary  for  the  General  Court  to  appoint  special 
commissaries,  or  a  committee  of  commissaries  for  each 
expedition.^ 

The  colonial  militia,  organized  in  the  manner  indicated, 
was  subject  to  frequent  training,  particularly  during  the 
early  years  of  the  colony 's  history.  Soon  after  the  settle- 
ment of  the  colony,  it  was  provided  that  the  train  bands 
should  be  exercised  once  a  month;  unskillful  persons 
oftener.^  This  was  found  to  place  too  great  a  burden  on 
the  inhabitants,  and  the  number  of  days  was  reduced  to 
ten  in  a  year,  then  to  six,  and  finally  to  four.^  In  addi- 
tion to  the  company  trainings,  general  trainings  of  all 
the  militia,  and  later  regimental  trainings  were  provided 
for.  ^  Absence  from  trainings,  defects  in  arms  and  ammu- 
nition, disobedience  of  orders,  and  other  breaches  of  dis- 
cipline, were  punished  by  the  infliction  of  fines,  or  severer 
forms  of  punishment.^  The  system  of  watching  and 
warding  which  in  time  of  peace  was  an  adjunct  of  the 
police  force,  became  in  time  of  danger,  an  important  part 
of  the  military  organization.  The  watch  was  maintained 
during  the  night,  and  if  need  be  during  the  day  also.    It 

I  Ibid.,  II,  453,  506;  X,  445. 

^Ibid.,  IV,  458;  VIII,  324;  IX,  89;  XI,  124;  MS.  Rec.  War,  IV,  68,  71, 
etc. 

3  Col.  Rec,  T,  4. 

*  Ibid.,  I,  15,  30;  IV,  250.  In  1761  the  number  of  trainings  was  re- 
duced to  two  days  a  year,  but  three  years  later  the  old  law  was  reestab- 
lished. Col.  Rec,  XII,  248,  607.  In  anticipation  of  the  Revolution  twelve 
half-day  trainings  yearly  were  provided.      Ibid.,  XIV,  32. 

*  In  1644  it  was  provided  that  there  should  be  a  general  training  of 
all  the  militia  once  in  two  years.  For  the  purpose  of  such  general  train- 
ings the  militia  was  organized  by  counties.  In  the  act  regimenting  the 
militia  it  was  ordered  that  there  should  be  regimental  trainings  once  in 
four  years.      Col.  Rec,  I,  266;  II,  238;  VIII,  384. 

«  For  a  detailed  and  interesting  list  of  such  punishments  see  Col.  Rec, 
II,  292. 


MILITABY   AFFAIBS.  91 

was  the  duty  of  the  watch  to  look  out  for  any  sudden 
attack  by  the  Indians,  or  other  enemies,  and  in  case  of 
danger  to  give  the  alarm  by  a  prearranged  signal.^ 

The  question  of  providing  permanent  fortifications  for 
the  coast  towns  of  the  colony,  had  early  been  considered 
by  the  colony  officials.  The  first  of  the  coast  towns  to  be 
fortified  was  Saybrook.  Some  rude  works  had  early 
been  constructed  there,  to  keep  it  from  falling  into  the 
hands  of  the  Dutch.^  In  1644  Connecticut  purchased  the 
town  and  fortification  from  George  Fenwick,  one  of  the 
Warwick  patentees.  The  other  fort  mentioned  in  the 
records  during  the  seventeenth  century,  was  that  at  New 
London.  This  first  comes  into  prominence  at  the  opening 
of  the  first  intercolonial  war.^ 

Wood  entered  largely  into  the  building  of  the  forts. 
With  mud  or  earth  embankments,  and  little  or  no 
masonry,  the  forts  were  anything  but  substantial  in  char- 
acter. At  best  the  appellation  fort  was  a  misnomer,  and 
usually  they  were  allowed  to  fall  into  a  sad  state  of  decay. 
The  following  report  of  a  committee  appointed  in  1693 
to  investigate  the  condition  of  the  fort  at  Saybrook,  is 
probably  not  an  overdrawn  picture  of  the  general  dilap- 
idated condition  of  the  colony's  defences. 

''Wee  find  that  such  are  the  Ruinous  decayes  of  ye 
said  ffort,  that  the  small  matter  of  charge  by  your  honour 
proposed  will  bee  all  togither  insignificant  and  worth  less 
both  to  their  Majesties  and  this  Colonye's  Interest,  the 

*  In  the  act  settling  the  militia  enacted  by  Andros,  it  was  provided 
that  in  case  of  an  alarm,  four  muskets  or  small  arms  should  be  discharged, 
or  one  "  great  gun  "  fired,  accompanied  by  the  beating  of  a  drum.  Col.  Rec, 
III,  432.  Compare  Levermore,  op.  cit.,  51;  Steiner,  Hist,  of  Guilford,  417; 
Col.  Rec,  I,  2,  560;  IV,  18;  VIII,  387. 

^n  1633  the  Dutch  from  Manhattan  sailed  up  the  Connecticut  River 
and  erected  a  block  house  on  the  present  site  of  Hartford.  Trumbull, 
I;  Morgan,  Conn,  as  a  Colony  and  a  State,  I,  84. 

'Col.  Rec,  IV,  19,  48,  73,  etc. 


92  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

Gates  are  all  down  but  one,  and  one  of  them  gone,  both 
Wood  and  iron  therrof  ye  hooks  of  ye  greate  Gate  stole ; 
most  of  ye  Iron  of  one  of  ye  Cariages  with  all  the  iron  of 
another,  taken  away;  the  Platformes  all  Rotten  and  un- 
servisable;  part  of  ye  stone  wall  yt  supports  the  mount 
fallen  down,  most  of  the  mud  wall  decayed,  with  the 
Palasados  agt  itt ;  about  Four  Rodd  of  plank  Wall  on  the 
north  that  never  was  done,  and  Lyes  open,  the  Jack,  Jack 
staff  and  Filler  to  be  repaired  with  new,  most  of  ye  great 
shott  pilfered  and  gone,  and  according  to  our  favourable 
judgmt  doe  Compute  ye  Charge,  to  be  noe  less  than  Fifty 
pounds  to  put  itt  in  a  defensiue  posture,  all  which  etc."^ 
Little  or  no  improvement  was  made  in  either  of  the  two 
principal  forts  during  the  eighteenth  century.  In  1709 
both  the  forts  at  New  London  and  Saybrook  were  in  an 
advanced  state  of  decay.^  In  1728  the  General  Court  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  inspect  the  fort  at  New  London  to 
see  whether  it  was  advisable  to  repair  the  old  fort  or  build 
a  new  one,  but  nothing  seems  to  have  been  accomplished.^ 
During  the  long  interval  of  peace  between  the  second 
and  third  intercolonial  wars,  the  defences  of  the  coast 
towns  were  almost  completely  neglected.  With  the  out- 
break of  hostilities,  the  colonists  were  once  more  aroused 
over  the  defenceless  condition  of  their  ports.  A  large 
number  of  petitions  were  sent  to  the  General  Court,  re- 
questing aid  in  repairing  the  fortifications.^  In  a  petition 
of  the  inhabitants  of  New  London,  it  was  stated  "That 
ye  Town  and  Port  of  New  London  is  in  a  very  naked  and 
defenceless  Condition  .  .  .  Convincing  us  that  we  Live 
Carelessly  without  walls   or   Strongholds,   or  other  de- 

*MS.  Rec.  War,  II,  184. 

2  Ibid.,  Ill,  72,  73. 

3  Col.  Rec,  VII,  216. 
«MS.  Rec.  War,  IV,  1-51. 


MILITAKY   AFFAIES.  93 

fence  under  Heaven,  and  are  unworthy  the  Care  of 
Providence  without  the  exercise  of  prudent  Endeavours 
for  the  Safety  of  our  Lives  and  fortune."'  In  answer 
to  these  petitions  the  General  Court  ordered  the  purchase 
of  some  cannon  to  be  placed  in  the  New  London  fort.^ 

In  1756  Governor  Fitch  reported  to  the  Board  of  Trade 
that  the  only  fort  in  the  colony  was  a  ''small  battery" 
at  New  London,  containing  nine  guns,  three  unfit  for  use ; 
twenty-two  carriage  guns,  and  twelve  swivel  guns  taken 
from  the  colony  sloop.  No  mention  is  made  of  Saybrook, 
probably  because  it  had  fallen  into  such  bad  condition  that 
it  had  been  abandoned  as  a  fort.^ 

In  the  interior  towns,  particularly  in  the  more  remote 
and  exposed  settlements,  certain  selected  houses  were 
''fortified."  The  fortification  usually  consisted  of  a  log 
wall  built  a  short  distance  from  the  house,  all  around  it. 
The  wall  was  carried  up  ten  or  twelve  feet  in  height,  with 
such  openings  as  were  necessary  for  discharging  muskets. 
In  times  of  danger  the  inhabitants  would  repair  to  the  for- 
tified houses  at  night,  returning  to  their  homes  during 
the  day."*  This  method  of  interior  defence  was  quite  gen- 
eral during  King  Philip's  war.  Fortified  houses  also 
appear  during  the  first  and  second  intercolonial  wars, 
especially  in  the  frontier  towns.  During  the  last  two  in- 
tercolonial wars,  in  which  there  was  little  fear  of  the  Con- 
necticut towns  suffering,  the  fortification  of  houses  seldom 
appeared.^ 

1  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  V,  219  et  seq. 

"Col.  Rec,  VIII,  71;  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  V,  337. 

3  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  I,  282. 

<  Davis,  Hist,  of  Wallingford,  350;  Steiner,  Hist,  of  Guilford,  421; 
Cothren,  Hist,  of  Ancient  Woodbury,  60,  78;  Caulkins,  Hist,  of  New  Lon- 
don, 183;  Bronson,  Hist,  of  Watcrburj^   102. 

*  There  is  a  reference  to  fortified  houses  in  the  extreme  northwestern 
township  of  Salisbury  during  the  third  intercolonial  war.  Col.  Rec,  IX, 
198. 


94  CONNECTICUT    AS    A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

Of  a  colonial  ''navy"  little  need  be  said,  as  nothing 
which  could  be  dignified  by  that  name  appeared  during 
the  colonial'  period.  During  the  seventeenth  century  the 
only  mention  of  a  war  vessel  was  a  frigate  of  ten  or 
twelve  guns  provided  by  Connecticut  and  New  Haven  in 
1653,  when  there  was  fear  of  an  attack  by  the  Dutch. ^ 
Toward  the  end  of  the  second  intercolonial  war,  Connecti- 
cut tried  to  arrange  with  Rhode  Island  to  provide  a  guard 
ship  to  protect  the  coasting  trade  between  Boston  and 
New  London.  Rhode  Island  did  not  see  fit  to  cooperate, 
and  Connecticut  provided  one  alone.-  At  the  opening  of 
the  third  intercolonial  war,  the  General  Court  ordered  that 
'*a  strong  swift  and  large"  sloop  be  procured  for  the  de- 
fence of  the  coast.  The  sloop  was  built  at  Middletown  and 
named  the  Defence.  It  acted  as  a  coast  defence  ship, 
capturing  at  least  one  French  vessel,  made  a  cruise  to 
Cuba  in  1741,  took  part  in  the  capture  of  Louisburg  in 
1745,  receiving  5,000  pounds  as  prize  money,  and  was 
finally  disarmed  and  sold  at  auction  in  1748  for  4,860 
pounds.^  During  the  last  of  the  colonial  wars,  a  brigan- 
tine  named  the  Tartar  was  purchased  and  fitted  up  with 
the  guns  taken  from  the  Defence.  This  ship  was  only 
kejDt  two  years  when  it  was  sold  at  auction  for  800  pounds.^ 
Such  was  the  extent  of  the  colonial  navy. 

Hardly  had  the  pioneers  of  Connecticut  become  settled 
in  their  new  homes,  when  ''an  offensiue  warr"  was  de- 
clared against  the  Pequot  Indians.  This  tribe  inhabited 
the  southeastern  part  of  the  colony  in  what  is  now  New 
London  County.  They  were  the  most  numerous  and  war- 
like of  the  native  tribes  of  Connecticut.^    The  preliminary 

'New  Haven  Col.  Rec,  II,   14;   Trumbull,  I,  213. 
'  Col.  Rec,  V,  207,  306. 

'Col.  Rec,  IX,  355,  411;  Conn.  Hist.  Soc  Colls.,  V,  356. 
*Col.  Rec,  XI,  62,  295;  MS.  Rec  War,  Vll,  191;  VllI,  239. 
5  The   best   estimate    of   their    fighting    strength   is    about    six   hundred 
warriors.      De  Forrest,  Hist,  of  the  Indians  of  Connecticut,  58. 


MILITARY   AFFAIKS.  95 

events  leading  up  to  the  struggle  might  be  briefly  noted. 
One  Capt.  Stone,  in  1633,  had  come  from  Virginia  to 
trade  on  the  New  England  coast.  After  a  short  stay  in 
Massachusetts  he  sailed  with  a  Capt.  Norton  to  the  Con- 
necticut River.  The  Indians  appearing  friendly,  were 
allowed  to  board  the  ship.  Probably  the  too  free  dispensa- 
tion of  ''fire  water"  led  to  the  massacre  of  the  Captain 
while  in  a  drunken  stupor,  and  a  fight  between  the  In- 
dians and  the  rest  of  the  crew.  In  the  midst  of  the 
'  *  melee ' '  the  vessel  was  blown  up  by  a  quantity  of  powder 
being  ignited.^  Difficulties  which  the  Pequots  were  then 
in,  both  with  the  Dutch  and  their  own  dependent  tribes, 
predisposed  them  to  desire  peace  with  the  English.  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  Pequots  visited  Massachusetts  in  an 
effort  to  arrange  a  treaty  with  the  English.  Finally, 
after  telling  a  plausible  story  about  the  murder  of  Stone, 
and  agreeing  to  surrender  the  murderers,  an  agreement 
was  made  and  signed  by  which  the  English  agreed  to 
make  settlements  in  the  Pequot  country  and  send  vessels 
to  trade  with  the  natives.^  The  latter  agreed  to  pay  to 
the  English  400  fathoms  of  wam'pum,  30  otter  and  40 
beaver  skins.  Neither  party  to  the  treaty  fulfilled  its 
conditions.  Trouble  was  precipitated  by  the  murder  of 
one  John  Oldham,  a  trader,  by  the  Indians  on  Block 
Island.^  The  Pequots  were  accused  of  harboring  the 
murderers  of  Oldham.  An  expedition  was  fitted  out  under 
John  Endicott  which  first  proceeded  to  Block  Island, 
where  nothing  further  was  accomplished  than  the  destruc- 
tion of  some  Indian  wigwams  and  corn  fields.^  Proceed- 
ing then  to  the  Pequot  country  they  touched  at  Saybrook, 
where  they  were  joined  by  Lieut.  Gardiner  in  command  of 

»  Winthrop,  Hist,  of  New  England,  I,   123;   De  Forest,  op.  cit.,  77. 

*  Winthrop,  op.  cit.,  147-149. 

3  Winthrop,  I,  189;  Trumbull,  I,  71. 

*  Mass.  Hist.  Colls.,  4th  Series,  VI,  5,  6.     Winthrop,  op.  cit.,  I,  192-194. 


96  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

the  garrison  at  that  point.  The  Indians  did  not  suspect 
the  cause  of  the  Englishmen 's  visit,  and  no  opposition  was 
made  to  their  landing.  Endicott  made  his  demands 
known,  which,  naturally,  were  refused  by  the  natives.  In 
the  resulting  struggle  about  all  that  was  accomplished  was 
the  destruction  of  the  Indian  wigwams  and  com,  and  the 
arousal  of  the  thirst  for  vengeance  in  the  Indians.^  The 
Pequots  resolved  to  form  an  alliance  with  their  old  enemies 
the  Narragansetts,  and  sent  two  sachems  to  the  latter  tribe 
for  that  purpose.^  Their  plans  were  forestalled  by  the 
Massachusetts  colony  arranging  a  treaty  of  alliance  with 
the  Narragansetts  through  the  influence  of  Roger  Wil- 
liams.^ 

The  Pequots  having  failed  in  their  design  to  bring 
about  a  general  Indian  war,  turned  their  attention  to 
making  reprisals  upon  the  nearest  English  settlement, 
the  garrison  at  Saybrook.  Here  a  succession  of  raids 
were  made,  several  stragglers  from  the  fort  killed,  out- 
houses and  crops  destroyed,  and  the  garrison  kept  in  vir- 
tual state  of  siege  ^  Early  in  1637  the  Indians  made  their 
appearance  further  up  the  Connecticut,  and  killed  and 
captured  several  of  the  inhabitants  of  Wethersfield.  ^ 
Following  these  disasters  the  General  Court  declared  war, 
and  ordered  the  raising  of  a  force  of  90  men,  under  the 
command  of  Major  Mason.  ^  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth 
had  agreed  to  send  aid,  the  former  raising  200  men  and 
the  latter  40  men.'^  The  Connecticut  troops  were  joined 
by  about  70  Indians  under  the  Mohegan  sachem  Uncas. 

1  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  4th  Series,  III,  141 ;  Ibid.,  4th  Series,  VI,  10. 
*  Hubbard,  Narrative  of  the  Indian  Wars,  29. 
»R.  I.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  Ill,  160;  Winthrop,  op.  cit.,  I,  198. 
Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  4th  Ser.,  Ill,  142  et  seq.;  ibid.,  4th  Ser.,  VI,  15 
et  seq.;  Trumbull,  I,  72  et  seq. 

5  Trumbull,  I,  77;  Winthrop,  I,  218;  Mass.  Hist.  Colls,  2d  Ser.,  IV,  30. 

6  Col.  Rec,  I,  9. 

1  Winthrop,  I,  222. 


MILITARY    AFFAIRS.  97 

Mason  with  his  small  band  sailed  down  the  Connecticut 
and  thence  proceeded  along  the  coast,  passing  the  Pequot 
country,  and  landing  among  the  Narragansetts.  Having 
received  permission  from  the  latter  to  march  through 
their  territory  in  order  to  attack  the  Pequots  from  the 
rear,  he  proceeded  without  waiting  for  the  Massachusetts 
contingent  which  had  been  dispatched  overland.  On  the 
march  he  was  joined  by  some  of  the  Narragansett  In- 
dians. Having  reached  the  Pequot  country,  it  was 
learned  that  the  natives  had  two  ** fortified"  places.  One 
of  the  * '  forts ' '  near  Groton  was  attacked  before  daybreak, 
taking  the  Indians  by  surprise  and  throwing  them  into 
confusion.  The  order  was  finally  given  to  fire  the  pali- 
sade, and  most  of  the  Indians  perished  miserably  in  the 
flames.^  Mason  and  the  Connecticut  contingent  returned 
to  their  ships,  and  sailed  home.  The  Massachusetts  forces 
under  Capt.  Patrick,  which  had  come  from  Narragansett 
with  the  fleet,  proceeded  overland  to  Saybrook. 

The  remnant  of  the  Pequots  determined  to  abandon 
their  old  homes  and  seek  refuge  towards  the  west.  The 
colonists  determined  to  pursue  and  exterminate  them. 
Massachusetts  voted  to  raise  a  force  of  120  men  under  the 
command  of  Capt.  Israel  Stoughton.^  This  force  landed 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Pequot  River,  surrounded  a  swamp 
in  which  were  concealed  a  party  of  Pequots,  killed  the 
warriors  and  sold  the  women  and  children  as  slaves. 
Proceeding  westward  they  were  joined  by  a  Connecticut 
force  under  Mason.  The  Pequots  were  driven  westward 
and  finally  surrounded  in  a  swamp  near  Fairfield.  Sas- 
sacus,  the  leader  of  the  Pequots,  escaped  westward,  where 

^  The  number  of  persons  that  were  killed  has  been  estimated  variously 
at  from  three  to  seven  hundred.  De  Forest,  op.  cit.,  133.  For  full  ac- 
counts of  this  campaign  see  Mason,  Hist,  of  the  Pequot  War  Mass.  Hist. 
Soc.  Colls.,  2d  Ser.,  VIII,  133  et  seq.      De  Forest,  op.  cit.,  119  et  seq. 

^Winthrop,  I,  232. 


98  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

he  was  afterward  killed  by  the  Mohawks.  The  remainder 
were  either  killed  or  captured  and  the  most  powerful  of 
the  tribes  of  Connecticut  Indians  was  thus  completely 
crushed.  Some  of  the  captives  were  sold  as  slaves,  others 
were  distributed  among  the  Mohegan  and  Narragansett 
tribes.^ 

This  war,  if  it  can  be  dignified  by  that  name,  had  made 
certain  facts  apparent.  The  Indians  with  their  primitive 
weapons,  were  no  match  for  the  Englishmen  with  fire 
arms.  Furthermore  the  settlers  had  learned  that  one 
tribe  of  natives  could  be  used  to  annihilate  another.  The 
Indians  had  not  come  to  look  upon  the  whites  as  a  com- 
mon enemy  to  their  race.  Before  the  final  struggle  be- 
tween the  settlers  and  the  Indians  of  southern  New  Eng- 
land occurred,  the  conditions  had  decidedly  changed  to 
the  disadvantage  of  the  whites.  Through  the  cupidity 
of  some  of  the  colonists,  the  Indians  gradually  became 
supplied  with  fire  arms.  Furthermore  the  natives  had 
learned,  in  a  measure,  by  bitter  experience,  the  necessity 
of  presenting  a  united  front  against  their  common  foe. 
It  was  under  these  changed  conditions  that  the  last,  and 
by  far  the  greatest,  struggle  between  the  natives  and  the 
whites  in  southern  New  England,  took  place.  This  was 
the  so-called  King  Philip's  War. 

Before  discussing  this  final  struggle  some  mention 
needs  to  be  made  of  the  Indian  troubles  from  the  close 
of  the  Pequot  War,  to  the  opening  of  Philip's  War. 
Some  of  the  wandering  Pequots  had  found  their  way 
back  to  their  old  lands,  and  had  built  a  village.  This  was 
contrary  to  treaty  agreement,  and  the  General  Court  dis- 
patched a  force  of  40  soldiers  under  Major  Mason,  to 
break  up  the  village,  and  disperse  the  Indians.-     The 

*  Mason,  op.  cit.,  145  et  seq. ;  Hubbard,  op.  cit.,  42  et  seq. ;  Winthrop,  I, 
232  et  seq. 

2  Col.  Rec,  I,  32. 


MILITARY   AFFAIRS.  99 

band  was  broken  up  and  the  village  destroyed  with  little 
difficulty.^  The  colonists  were  kept  almost  in  constant 
turmoil  and  strife  with  various  tribes,  as  a  result  of  tak- 
ing Uncas  and  the  Mohegans  under  their  protection. 
Other  tribes  were  envious  of  the  increased  influence  and 
power  of  Uncas.  Among  these  were  the  Connecticut 
River  Indians  imder  Sequassen,  and  the  Narragansetts 
with  Miantinomo  at  their  head.  Uncas  first  clashed  with 
Sequassen,  resulting  in  the  defeat  of  the  latter,  the  death 
of  several  of  his  warriors,  and  the  burning  of  their  wig- 
wams.'^  This  precipitated  a  war  between  Uncas  and  the 
Narrangansetts.  The  colonists  held  aloof  from  this 
struggle,  allowing  the  Indians  to  settle  their  diiferences 
in  their  own  way.  By  a  piece  of  strategem  on  the  part 
of  the  wily  Uncas,  the  Narragansetts  were  defeated  and 
their  leader  captured.^  Carrying  his  captive  in  triumph 
to  Hartford,  Uncas  laid  before  the  Magistrates  the  ques- 
tion of  the  final  disposal  of  the  prisoner.  It  was  decided 
to  refer  the  matter  to  the  next  meeting  of  Commissioners 
of  the  United  Colonies.  This  body  decided  that  Mian- 
tonomo  should  be  killed.  He  was  handed  over  to  Uncas, 
and  a  deputation  of  two  Englishmen  was  appointed  to 
accompany  the  party  to  see  that  the  execution  was  done 
in  a  decent  manner.^ 

The  eastern  settlements  of  Connecticut  became  in- 
volved in  the  struggle  between  the  Dutch  at  New  Nether- 
lands, and  the  Hudson  Eiver  Indians.^  The  Dutch  en- 
listed the  services  of  the  famous  Indian  fighter  Capt. 

1  Mason,  op.  cit.,  149-151. 

"Winthrop,  II,  130;  De  Forest,  187. 

'Trumbull,  I,  129  et  seq.;  Winthrop,  II,  131  et  seq. 

*  Trumbull,  I,  133;  Winthrop,  II,  134. 

6  This  was  the  struggle  precipitated  by  the  foolhardy  action  of  Gov. 
Kieft  in  murdering  the  Indians  that  had  taken  refuge  on  Manhattan 
Island.      Brodhead,  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  I,  350  et  seq. 


100  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

Underhill,  who  brought  the  struggle  to  a  close  by  the 
overwhelming  defeat  of  the  Indians  near  Stamford. 

Trouble  between  the  Narragansetts  and  the  Mohegans 
did  not  end  with  the  death  of  Miantonomo.  Constant  at- 
tempts were  made  by  the  former  to  avenge  the  death  of 
their  leader.  In  1644  the  Commissioners  of  the  United 
Colonies,  summoned  representatives  of  both  parties  be- 
fore them,  to  arrange  some  sort  of  accommodation.  A 
truce  was  agreed  to  for  one  year,  and  a  promise  made 
that  thirty  days'  notice  of  hostilities  would  be  given  to 
the  Governor  of  Massachusetts.^  This  agreement  was 
not  kept.  The  Narragansetts  joined  by  the  Nehantics 
laid  waste  the  territory  of  the  Mohegans.  It  was  not 
until  the  Narragansetts  were  threatened  with  the  same 
treatment  that  had  been  given  the  Pequots  that  they  were 
brought  to  terms.  ^  In  1654  trouble  broke  out  between  the 
colonists  and  the  Nehantics,  growing  out  of  the  war  of 
the  latter  with  the  Long  Island  Indians.  A  force  of  Eng- 
lish sent  down  into  the  Nehantic  country,  was  suflScient 
to  bring  the  Indians  to  terms. ^  From  this  time  on  until 
the  outbreak  of  Philip's  War,  except  for  the  almost  con- 
stant conflicts  of  Uncas  with  various  Indian  tribes,  which 
were  usually  settled  by  threatened  or  actual  interference 
of  the  English,  the  settlers  were  not  engaged  in  any  strife 
with  the  natives. 

All  the  conflicts  which  have  been  briefly  outlined,  were 
but  slight  skirmishes  or  preliminaries  to  the  great  strug- 
gle which  opened  in  1675,  and  continued  almost  inces- 
santly for  more  than  a  year.  It  is  not  proposed  to  give 
a  detailed  account  of  this  celebrated  contest,  but  only  to 
briefly  outline  the  part  taken  in  it  by  Connecticut. 

>  Hazard,  25,  26. 

i  Ibid.,  11,  28-44;  Caulkins,  Hist,  of  New  London,  23-26. 

3  Hazard,  II,  308-381. 


MILITABY   ATFAIBS.  101 

This  struggle  presents  several  new  considerations. 
First,  the  Indians,  as  has  been  noted,  had  become  well 
supplied  with  firearms,  and  had  learned,  in  a  measure, 
to  combine  for  mutual  protection  against  the  whites. 
Then  again,  this  struggle,  viewed  in  a  broader  light,  was 
significant.  It  was  the  one  great  Indian  War  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  which  tested  the  combined  efforts 
of  the  New  England  colonies.  Here  became  apparent  the 
inherent  difficulties  of  carrying  on  a  warfare  requiring 
the  combined  efforts  of  the  several  colonies.  New  Eng- 
land individualism  never  appeared  to  less  advantage  than 
in  carrying  on  extensive  military  operations.  It  is  an 
axiom  of  military  science  that  divided  authority  is  fatal 
to  effective  warfare.  In  no  function  of  administration  is 
centralization  so  essential  as  in  the  direction  of  military 
forces  in  time  of  war.  In  New  England  there  was  no 
central  authority,  outside  the  vague  control  exercised  by 
the  commissioners  of  the  New  England  Confederacy. 
Under  these  circumstances  effective  campaigning  was 
seriously  handicapped.  There  were  bound  to  be  local 
jealousies  and  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  operations  should  be  conducted.  With  all  the 
possibilities  for  friction  and  disagreement,  the  wonder  is 
that  there  should  have  been  as  effective  cooperation  as 
appeared.  The  common  danger  to  all  parties  concerned 
probably  is  accountable  for  this  fact.  It  was  not  until 
the  larger  military  operations  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
when  the  danger  was  no  longer  equally  distributed,  that 
the  fatal  weakness  of  the  New  England  system  became 
fully  apparent. 

At  the  beginning  Philip's  war  was  a  local  struggle 
around  Mt.  Hope  peninsula  in  the  Plymouth  colony. 
Massachusetts  came  to  the  aid  of  Plymouth.  Philip  was 
forced  to  cross  to  the  eastern  shore  of  Narragansett  Bay, 


102  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

and  take  refuge  in  a  swamp. ^  The  Massachusetts  troops 
then  proceeded  down  into  the  Narragansett  country  to 
force  that  considerable  tribe  to  agree  to  a  treaty  with  the 
English.  The  only  effect  of  this  manoeuvre  was  to  en- 
sure the  hostility  of  the  Narragansetts,  who  up  to  that 
time  had  not  given  clear  evidences  of  joining  Philip. 

Philip,  who  had  taken  refuge  in  the  swamp,  made  good 
his  escape  and  proceeded  into  central  Massachusetts. 
Joined  by  the  Indians  in  this  section,  the  war  now  as- 
sumed more  serious  proportions,  and  its  spread  to  the 
Connecticut  valley  opened  the  phase  of  the  struggle  in 
which  Connecticut  was  most  immediately  concerned.  The 
Massachusetts  towns  in  the  Connecticut  valley  were 
logically  an  extension  of  the  northern  border  of  Connecti- 
cut rather  than  of  the  western  border  of  Massachusetts. 
Between  these  towns  and  the  true  western  frontier  of 
Massachusetts  was  a  tract  fifty  miles  wide  of  uninhabited 
country.  News  of  an  attack  upon  Quaboag  (Brookfield) 
moved  the  Council  of  Connecticut  to  dispatch  forty  men 
to  Springfield  to  aid  the  Massachusetts  towns.  To  these 
were  added  several  bands  of  Pequots  and  Mohegan  In- 
dians, who  remained  faithful  to  the  English  throughout 
the  struggle.^  In  August,  in  anticipation  of  a  raid  by  the 
Indians  in  the  northern  Connecticut  Valley,  the  Council 
ordered  the  dragoons  and  other  forces  which  had  been 
raised  under  Major  Treat  to  proceed  northward,^ 

A  good  instance  of  the  lack  of  any  general  plan  of  cam- 
paign or  effective  cooperation  was  shown  at  the  outset. 
Major  Treat  had  hardly  started  on  his  march  when  he  was 
recalled  to  search  for  some  Indians  that  were  seen  lurking 
about  Hartford.^    In  the  meantime,  an  attack  had  occurred 

'  Osgood,  American  Colonies,  I,  549. 

2  Col.  Eec,  II,  345,  348. 

» Ibid.,  II,  356. 

*  Ibid.,  II,  359,  360. 


MILITAEY   AFFAIRS.  103 

on  Deerfield,  and  Treat  was  ordered  northward  again. 
Differences  of  opinion  also  arose  between  the  Connecti- 
cut and  Massachusetts  authorities,  as  to  the  method  of 
carrying  on  the  campaign.  Connecticut  objected  to  hav- 
ing her  troops  used  for  garrisoning  the  Massachusetts 
towns,  and  insisted  upon  more  active  measures.  Upon 
rumors  of  a  general  uprising  of  Connecticut  Indians, 
Major  Treat  was  again  ordered  to  return  to  Hartford 
with  a  portion  of  the  Connecticut  forces.  In  his  absence 
trouble  developed  between  Lieut.  Seely,  in  command  of 
the  Connecticut  troops,  and  Capt.  Appleton,  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts contingent.  Seely  refused  to  take  orders  from 
Appleton,  referring  to  Treat  as  his  superior.^  Upon  the 
return  of  Treat,  the  difficulty  seems  to  have  been  settled. 
In  November,  1675,  the  scene  of  activity  was  shifted 
to  the  Narragansett  country.  The  actions  of  this  tribe 
gave  rise  to  the  conviction  that  they  were  not  observing 
the  treaty  to  which  they  had  been  forced  to  agree.  A  force 
of  1,000  men,  of  which  Connecticut  furnished  315  whites 
and  150  Mohegans,  was  dispatched  against  the  Narragan- 
setts.  The  Indian  fort  was  in  a  swamp  near  the  present 
town  of  North  Kingston.  After  a  sanguinary  battle  the 
fort  was  taken  by  storm  and  burned.^  There  was  much 
suffering  among  the  soldiers  through  the  severity  of  the 
weather  and  lack  of  supplies.  Some  of  the  soldiers  had 
deserted,  and  when  a  fresh  levy  was  called  for  there  was 
much  complaint  and  some  difficulty  in  obtaining  the  re- 
quired quota  of  500  men.^  The  resulting  midwinter  raid 
into  the  Narragansett  and  Nipmuck  country  accomplished 
no  decisive  results. 

1  Ibid.,  II,  374,  381. 

*  The  English  lost  seventy  killed  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  wounded. 
Of  these  killed  forty  were  Connecticut  men.  Bodge;  Trumbull,  I,  337 
et  seq. 

3  Col.  Rec,  II,  394  et  seq. ;  MS.  Rec.  War,  I,  34a. 


104  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

In  the  spring  of  1676  the  Connecticut  troops  were  again 
employed  in  the  Narragansett  country,  one  of  their  im- 
portant achievements  being  the  capture  of  the  Narragan- 
sett chief  Canonchet.  In  May  a  force  under  Major  Tal- 
cott,  combined  with  a  Massachusetts  force,  ranged  the 
upper  country,  but  with  no  material  results.  In  June 
Major  Talcott  again  left  Hartford  and  made  a  success- 
ful raid  through  the  Narragansett  country,  capturing  and 
killing  some  238  Indians.^  The  backbone  of  the  struggle 
which  was  now  broken  was  finally  terminated  by  the 
dramatic  death  of  Philip.- 

In  the  brief  summary  which  has  been  given  of  the  one 
important  Indian  war  of  the  seventeenth  century,  there 
are  one  or  two  points  which  need  to  be  emphasized.  From 
the  standpoint  of  administration— and  this  is  the  phase 
of  the  subject  with  which  we  are  most  immediately  con- 
cerned—the fundamental  weakness  of  the  New  England 
system  had  become  sufficiently  manifest.  While  toler- 
able unity  of  action  had  been  maintained,  it  was  accom- 
plished at  times  with  much  difficulty.  One  colony,  Rhode 
Island,  had  not  been  asked,  and  had  taken  no  part  in  the 
struggle.  The  others,  and  particularly  Connecticut,  had 
shown  a  commendable  spirit  of  individual  sacrifice  for  the 
common  good.  But  after  all  has  been  said  the  fact  re- 
mains that,  had  the  struggle  been  on  a  more  pretentious 
scale,  or  had  the  colonists  been  confronted  by  an  enemy 
more  nearly  their  equal,  the  possibilities  of  discord  which 
pertained  to  the  system  of  divided  authority  would  almost 
inevitably  have  resulted  in  disaster  for  the  colonies. 

With  the  last  decade  of  the  seventeenth  century  opened 
the  long  series  of  wars  between  England  and  France,  all 

'  Col.  Rec.',  II,  458. 

-Trumbull,  I,  307.  The  strugj^le  continued  among  the  eastern  settle- 
ments in  New  Hampshire  and  Elaine  until  the  summer  of  1078.  Bodge, 
op.  cit.,  290-341. 


MILITABY   AFFAIRS.  105 

of  which  were  reproduced  in  the  colonies  of  each  country 
in  the  New  World. 

Before  considering  these  different  struggles,  some  gen- 
eral considerations  need  to  be  noted.  The  Indian  wars 
which  have  been  reviewed  were  contests  simply  between 
the  English  colonists  and  the  natives  unaided  by  any 
European  power.  The  colonists,  moreover,  in  these  wars 
had  been  left  entirely  to  their  own  resources,  both  as  to 
means  and  methods.  Neither  aid  nor  interference  came 
from  England.  With  the  advent  of  the  colonial  wars  all 
this  was  changed.  The  Indians  were  now  joined  by  a 
powerful  European  nation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Eng- 
lish colonists  received  aid,  and  what  is  of  more  impor- 
tance, direction  from  the  home  government.^  The  colonists 
were  no  longer  left  to  themselves  in  planning  and  execut- 
ing their  military  operations.  They  were  called  upon  to 
take  part  in  campaigns  in  the  conception  and  management 
of  which  they  had  little  to  do.  They  were  now  for  the 
first  time  participating  in  the  larger  activities  of  the 
British  Empire.  The  isolated  position  in  which  the  col- 
onists, and  particularly  those  of  New  England,  had  been 
left  during  the  greater  part  of  the  seventeenth  century 
was,  in  a  measure,  changed.  There  had  been  developed  in 
England,  as  will  be  indicated  in  another  connection,  a 
more  uniform  colonial  policy,  involving  the  closer  depen- 
dence of  the  colonies  on  the  mother  country.  No  other 
colonies  were  so  greatly  affected  by  this  change  as  the 
corporate  colonies  of  New  England.  There  was  a  total 
absence  of  any  imperial  official  system  in  these  colonies, 
and,  if  any  such  system  was  to  be  provided,  there  must  be 
a  material  modification  of  their  internal  organization.  It 
is  not  proposed  in  this  connection  to  trace  in  detail  the  de- 
velopment of  imperial  control,  but  simply  to  point  out  how 

*  As  will  be  seen,  the  control  of  colonial  military  operations  by  the 
authorities  in  England  did  not  become  prominent  until  the  second  inter- 
colonial war,  and  was  not  fully  developed  until  the  last  intercolonial  war. 


106  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

the  intercolonial  wars  showed  the  necessity  for  such  con- 
trol, at  least  in  the  department  of  military  administration. 

Geographically  Connecticut  had  an  advantage  over 
most  of  the  other  colonies.  On  the  north  and  west  she 
was  protected  by  the  colonies  of  Massachusetts  and  New 
York.  Her  southern  coast  was  vulnerable,  but,  as  events 
proved,  there  was  little  to  be  feared  from  that  quarter. 
In  none  of  the  wars  was  the  territory  of  the  colony  invaded 
or  devastated  by  the  enemy.  Such  part  as  Connecticut 
took  in  the  wars  was  either  in  defence  of  her  neighboring 
colonies  or  in  the  different  offensive  campaigns  for  the 
reduction  of  Canada. 

In  1689,  less  than  three  months  after  the  Prince  of 
Orange  had  been  seated  on  the  English  throne,  war  was 
declared  between  England  and  France.  Count  Frontenac, 
who  had  lately  succeeded  to  the  government  of  Canada, 
immediately  prepared  to  dispatch  raiding  parties  of 
French  and  Indians  into  New  York  and  New  England.  In 
the  latter  the  French  were  aided  by  the  eastern  Indians, 
who  had  been  at  war  with  the  English  colonists  for  the 
past  two  years.  ^  Leisler,  who  had  assumed  the  govern- 
ment of  New  York  upon  the  deposition  of  Andros,  appealed 
to  Connecticut  for  aid.  Connecticut,  sympathizing  with 
his  cause,  dispatched  ten  men  to  help  garrison  the  fort  at 
New  York  and  a  company  of  soldiers  under  Capt.  Bull  to 
Albany  to  guard  the  frontier.^  A  part  of  the  Connecticut 
force  was  at  Schenectady  when  the  massacre  at  that  place 
occurred.^  Upon  receiving  news  of  this  calamity,  Con- 
necticut sent  two  hundred  reinforcements  to  Albany.^ 

^  Palfrey,  Hist,  of  New  England,  III,  567 ;  IV,  29  et  seq.  Connecticut 
came  to  the  aid  of  Massachusetts  in  the  war  with  the  Eastern  Indians 
with  two  hundred  men.      Col.  Rec,  IV,  2,  3,  4. 

^Col.  Rec,  III,  25.5;  Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  Ill,  589. 
O'Callaghan,  Documentary  Hist,  of  X.  Y.,  II,  20,  43. 

^  Connecticut  lost  five  men  killed  and  five  captured  in  this  assault.  Col. 
Rec,  III,  463. 

« Ibid.,  IV,  16,  26. 


MILITARY   AFFAIRS.  107 

The  most  important  enterprise  during  the  war  in  which 
Connecticut  took  part  was  the  abortive  expedition  against 
Montreal  in  1690.  This  expedition  had  been  planned  at  a 
meeting  in  New  York  of  commissioners  from  that  colony 
and  the  colonies  of  New  England.^  The  land  force  con- 
sisted of  800  English,  and  1,800  Indians,  under  the  com- 
mand of  Fitz  John  Winthrop.  AVhen  the  Connecticut  con- 
tingent reached  Wood  Creek  on  Lake  Champlain,  the 
appointed  place  of  rendezvous,  it  was  found  that  the 
Indians  had  not  appeared.  Furthermore,  the  canoes 
necessary  to  transport  the  troops  were  not  on  hand  and 
the  supplies  which  New  York  had  engaged  to  provide 
were  inadequate.  Sickness  among  the  troops  added  to 
the  diflficulties.  In  these  circumstances  a  council  of  war 
was  called  by  Winthrop  and  a  retreat  was  detennined 
upon.  Upon  the  arrival  of  Winthrop  at  Albany  it  appears 
that  Leisler,  enraged  at  the  failure  of  the  enterprise, 
ordered  the  arrest  and  court  martial  of  Winthrop. 
Trumbull  states  that  after  being  kept  in  confinement  for 
several  days  Winthrop  was  rescued  by  some  Mohawk 
Indians  'Ho  the  universal  joy  of  the  army. "^  When  the 
news  of  Winthrop 's  arrest  reach  Connecticut  the  General 
Court  dispatched  a  letter  to  Leisler  demanding  the  im- 
mediate release  of  the  general.''  Upon  an  examination  of 
the  case  by  the  Court,  Winthrop  was  fully  vindicated."* 

*  There  appear  to  have  been  some  Connecticut  troops  in  the  naval  ex- 
pedition under  Phips  which  was  sent  out  in  conjunction  with  Winthrop's 
expedition.      Sewall,  Letter  Book  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  6th  Ser.,  I,  126. 

2  Trumbull,  I,  384.  There  seems  to  be  no  question  that  Leisler  actually 
arrested  Winthrop.  The  story  of  his  rescue,  however,  may  have  originated 
in  Trumbull's  known  penchpnt  for  the  dramatic.  See  Winthrop's  Journal 
of  his  march  to  Wood  Creek;  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  5th  Ser.,  VIII,  312 
et  seq.  Also  Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  IV,  193  et  seq.;  Mass. 
Hist.  Soc.  Colls,  5th  Ser.,  VIII,  307  et  seq.;  ibid.,  5th  Ser.,  I,  440;  Palfrey, 
op.  cit.,  IV,  221. 

»  Trumbull,  I,  Appendix,  XXIV. 

*Col.  Rec,  IV,  38;  O'Callaghan,  Doc.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  II,  300,  gives 
Leisler's  version. 


108  CONNECTICUT    AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

During  the  remainder  of  the  war  Connecticut  was 
almost  constantly  called  upon  to  furnish  aid  to  her  neigh- 
boring colonies,  and  usually  the  colony  responded  gener- 
ously. In  1691  Connecticut  declined  to  send  150  men  to  gar- 
rison Albany  on  the  ground  of  poverty  and  the  exposed 
condition  of  her  own  frontiers.^  In  1692  Fletcher  arrived 
as  Governor  of  New  York,  and  the  difficulty  over  the  com- 
mand of  the  militia  of  Connecticut,  which  has  been  re- 
ferred to,  naturally  led  to  strained  relations  between  him 
and  the  colony  officials, ^  but  Connecticut  continued  to 
send  aid  to  New  York  throughout  the  war.^  Contribu- 
tions of  money  and  supplies,  with  troops,  were  likewise 
sent  to  Massachusetts.^  The  total  expenses  of  Connecti- 
cut in  this  ten  years  of  war  has  been  estimated  at  more 
than  12,000  pounds,  nearly  all  expended  for  operations 
outside  of  her  own  borders.'^ 

In  1701  began  the  second  intercolonial  war,  better  known 
as  Queen  Anne's  war.  The  year  after  the  war  started 
Joseph  Dudley  was  appointed  Governor  of  Massachusetts 
and  Lord  Cornbury  Governor  of  New  York.  The  rela- 
tions of  Connecticut  with  these  two  men  were,  to  say  the 
least,  not  cordial.  In  1703  the  colony  had  sent  100  men 
to  aid  Dudley  in  the  war  against  the  eastern  Indians.® 
Difficulties  almost  immediately  arose,  Dudley  insisting 
that  the  Connecticut  troops  while  in  Massachusetts  should 
be  under  his  orders."  Cornbury,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
continually  complaining  of  his  inability  to  get  aid  from 
Connecticut.^    The  statements  of  both  these  men  undoubt- 

^Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  X.  Y.,  Ill,  786. 

^  Fletcher  continually  complained  of  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  aid  from 
Connecticut.      Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  IV,  157,  174,  243. 
»Col.  Rec,  IV,  87,  160,  217. 
*md.,  IV,  64,  89,  129,  216. 
"  Trumbull,  I,  397. 

»Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  6th  Ser.,  Ill,  139,  153,   163. 
'  Ibid.,  6th  Ser.,  Ill,  273. 
8  Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  IV,  1061,   1070. 


MILITABY   AFFAIRS.  109 

edly  have  to  be  taken  with  considerable  reservation.  They 
were,  at  the  time,  engaged  in  a  combined  attempt  to  over- 
throw the  charter  of  Connecticut,  and  their  representa- 
tions were  unquestionably  not  disinterested.*  When,  in 
1707,  Dudley  requested  aid  from  Connecticut  in  a  contem- 
plated expedition  against  Canada  the  General  Court  flatly 
refused,  stating  that  they  had  not  been  consulted  in  plan- 
ning the  expedition,  and  further  that  they  had  been  at 
considerable  expense  in  defending  the  western  frontier  of 
Massachusetts.^ 

In  1709  the  English  Government  for  the  first  time  took 
an  active  part  in  the  war  in  America,  and,  as  events 
proved,  it  was  to  be  an  inglorious  beginning.  A  general 
plan  had  been  arranged  for  the  subjugation  of  Canada. 
Twelve  hundred  men  were  to  be  equipped  in  Massachu- 
setts and  Rhode  Island,  which  force  was  to  attack  Quebec. 
Fifteen  hundred  men  from  Connecticut,  New  York,  New 
Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  were  to  march  against  Quebec.^ 
To  these  was  to  be  added  a  sufficient  English  fleet.  In  the 
colonies  everything  was  prepared.  Connecticut's  contin- 
gent of  350  men  was  armed  and  equipped^  and  sent  to 
Wood  Creek,  the  place  of  rendezvous  of  the  western  force. 
After  a  long  wait  for  the  help  promised  from  England, 
news  was  received  that  the  fleet  and  troops  were  needed 
at  home.  With  this  intelligence  the  expedition  was 
abandoned  and  the  forces  at  Wood   Creek,  which  had 

1  In  1705  through  the  activity  of  Dudley  and  Cornbury  a  series  of 
complaints  had  been  made  against  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  with  a 
view  to  overthrowing  their  charters.  A  bill  introduced  in  Parliament 
for  the  purpose  of  vacating  all  colonial  charters.  Through  the  eflForts  of 
Sir  Henry  Ashurst,  the  agent  of  Connecticut,  the  bill  failed  to  pass  the 
House  of  Lords.  Trumbull,  I,  411  et  seq.;  R.  I.  Col.  Rec,  IV,  12,  16; 
Palfrey,  IV,  3G7  et  seq. 

»  Col.  Rec,  V,  17,  18. 

»  Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  V,  72. 

*  Col.  Rec,  V,  91,  123. 


110  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE    COLONY. 

suffered  much  from  an  epidemic  sickness,  retreated.    The 
whole  costly  expedition  had  come  to  nothing. 

The  following  year  (1710)  the  project  was  renewed.  A 
force  under  Col.  Nicholson,  made  up  of  New  England 
troops,  with  a  few  small  English  vessels  and  a  regiment  of 
royal  marines,  proceeded  to  Port  Royal,  which,  after  a 
week's  siege,  was  forced  to  surrender.^  This  success  stimu- 
lated the  authorities  in  England  to  greater  efforts.  In  1711 
a  fleet  of  fifteen  men  of  war  and  forty  transports  with  some 
five  thousand  troops,  arrived  at  Boston.  The  colonists 
responded  generously.  A  meeting  of  the  Governors  and 
military  officers  was  held  at  New  London  to  decide  on 
the  quota  to  be  furnished  by  each  colony  and  provide  for 
supplying  the  expedition  with  food.^  Connecticut's  quota 
was^xed  at  360  men,  which  number  was  promptly  raised.^ 
As  in  the  previous  expeditions,  the  Connecticut  contin- 
gent joined  the  forces  in  New  York  for  an  attack  on 
Montreal.  The  fleet  which  left  Boston  in  due  season  con- 
veying seven  thousand  troops,  while  proceeding  up  the  St. 
Lawrence  river,  lost  its  way  in  a  fog  and  some  ten  or 
eleven  of  the  ships  were  driven  on  the  rocks  and  nearly 
1,000  persons  drowned.  This  disaster  caused  the  with- 
drawal of  the  remainder  of  the  fleet  and  the  land  force 
which  had  gathered  near  Lake  Champlain.  Thus  the 
third  attempt  to  subdue  Canada  had  ended  in  dismal  fail- 
ure.^ The  following  year  the  war  was  closed  by  the  treaty 
of  Utrecht.  During  the  war  Connecticut,  besides  furnish- 
ing her  quota  of  men  in  the  several  Canadian  expeditions, 
had  almost  constantly  kept  troops  in  Massachusetts  to 
guard  the  western  frontier.^ 

*  Palfrey,  IV,  277.  Connecticut  furnished  three  hundred  men  in  this 
expedition.      Col.  Rec,  V,  164. 

^  The  Journal  of  this  congress  is  printed  in  Doc.  Rel.  to  Col.  Hist,  of 
K  Y.,  V,  257. 

'  Col.  Rec,  V,  247.      The  Journal  says  three  hundred  men. 

«  Palfrey,  IV,  278;  Trumbull,  1,  441  et  seq. 

5  Col.  Rec,  V,  1G7,  295,  300,  326. 


MILITABY   AFFAIRS.  Ill 

With  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  there  was  to  be  a  period 
of  more  than  twenty-five  years  of  peace  between  England 
and  France.  In  the  colonies,  however,  trouble  was  con- 
stantly arising  between  the  English  and  the  eastern  In- 
dians, urged  on  by  the  French.  In  1722,  as  a  result  of 
many  depredations  by  the  natives  in  Maine,  the  General 
Court  of  Massachusetts  declared  war  against  the  eastern 
Indians.^  When  applied  to  for  aid  in  prosecuting  the  war, 
Connecticut  declined  on  the  ground  that ' '  the  war  was  not 
such  an  invasion  of  the  frontiers,  as  was  understood  by 
his  Majesty  in  his  instructions"  to  the  governor  of  Mass- 
achusetts.^ The  colony  agreed,  however,  to  send  troops 
into  Hampshire  County  to  protect  the  frontier  towns. 
Further  urgent  requests  for  aid  met  with  no  better  suc- 
cess, Connecticut  maintaining  that  she  had  not  been  con- 
sulted before  war  was  declared,  and  was  not  satisfied  as 
to  its  justice.^    The  struggle  was  finally  ended  in  1725.* 

In  1739  war  broke  out  between  England  and  Spain. 
It  was  determined  to  send  an  expedition  to  the  Spanish 
West  Indies  and  South  American  colonies  and  the  New 
England  colonies  were  called  upon  to  furnish  four  regi- 
ments.^ The  quota  for  each  colony  was  not  fixed,  as  it 
was  stated  that  they  ' '  would  not  set  bounds  to  their  Zeal 
for  the  Service. '  '^  Of  the  1,000  New  England  troops  that 
joined  this  ill-fated  expedition,  two  hundred  were  from 
Connecticut.^  The  land  force,  consisting  of  twelve  thou- 
sand soldiers  under  Lord  George  Cathcart,^  joined  the 

-  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Prov.  of  Mass.  Bay,  II,  258. 
«Col.  Rec,  VI,  335,  336;  MS.  Rec.  War,  III,  178-188. 
3  Col.  Rec,  VI,  503. 
*  Palfrey,  IV,  443. 

»  See  letter  of  the  Duke  of  New  Castle  to  Gov.  Talcott.      Conn.  Hist. 
Soc.  Colls.,  V,  191. 
6  Ibid.,  V,  230. 

T  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  V,  269,  304;  Col.  Rec,  VIII,  324. 
'  He  died  on  the  voyage  south  and  was  succeeded  by  Gen.  Wentworth. 


112  CONNECTICUT   AS   A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

considerable  fleet  of  Admiral  Vernon  at  Jamaica.  After 
some  delay,  during  whicli  the  forces  were  decimated  by 
the  tropical  climate,  it  was  determined  to  lay  siege  to  the 
Spanish  fortress  at  Cartagena.  After  an  ineffectual 
siege,  characterized  by  incompetence,  if  nothing  worse, 
on  the  part  of  the  commander,  the  fleet  and  the  remnants 
of  the  army  returned  to  Jamaica.  Of  the  New  England 
contingent  scarcely  one  tenth  ever  returned  home.^ 

In  1740  this  war  became  merged  in  the  general  Euro- 
pean struggle  over  the  Austrian  Succession.  As  was  to 
be  expected,  England  and  France  took  opposite  sides  in 
the  strife,  but  it  was  not  until  1744  that  war  was  formally 
declared  between  them,  and  once  again  the  rival  colonies 
in  America  were  engaged  in  the  struggle.  Governor 
Shirley  laid  before  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts 
a  plan  for  the  reduction  of  the  French  fortress  at  Louis- 
burg.  The  proposal  was  received  with  amazement  by  the 
Court  and  voted  down  as  being  quite  beyond  the  re- 
sources of  the  colony.  The  scheme  however  was  received 
with  favor  by  the  people  and  the  General  Court  finally 
consented.^  Aid  was  sought  from  the  other  colonies  but 
only  the  New  England  colonies  responded;  Connecticut 
with  500  men,  and  the  sloop  Defence.^ 

The  combined  colonial  force  under  Wm.  Pepperell  of 
Massachusetts,*  arrived  safely  at  Canseau  within  fifty 
miles  of  Louisburg.  The  troops  were  detained  a  month 
waiting  for  the  ice  to  break  up.  In  April  the  forces  were 
materially  strengthened  by  the  arrival  of  Commodore 

^  Trumbull,  II,  288. 

="  Palfrey,  V,  62  et  seq. 

'Col.  Rec,  IX,  83,  84.  The  Massachusetts  contingent  was  3,250  men; 
Rhode  Island  promised  300  men  but  they  did  not  appear  until  the  cam- 
paign was  over;  New  Hampshire  furnished  300  men  and  New  York  con- 
tributed ten  small  guns.  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  sent  some  pro- 
visions.    Palfrey,  V,  64. 

*  Roger  Walcott  of  Connecticut  was  second  in  command. 


MILITARY   AFFAIRS.  113 

Warren  with  several  English  men  of  war.  After  a  siege 
of  seven  weeks  the  fortress  was  forced  to  capitulate.^ 
The  news  of  the  capture  naturally  caused  great  rejoicing 
throughout  New  England,  but  this  joy  was  changed  to 
chagrin  when  it  was  learned  that  by  the  treaty  of  peace 
the  fortress  was  given  back  to  the  French.  The  capture 
of  Louisburg  raised  once  more  the  vision  of  the  subjuga- 
tion of  Canada.  The  proposal  was  favorably  entertained 
in  England,  and  help  was  promised.  The  colonies  voted 
to  raise  some  8,000  men,  Connecticut's  quota  being  1,000, 
but  the  failure  of  the  English  force  to  arrive,  and  an 
alarm  from  another  quarter  caused  the  abandonment  of 
the  expedition.^  Before  any  further  military  operations 
could  be  planned,  the  war  was  closed  by  the  treaty  of 
Aix  La  Chapelle. 

With  the  advent  of  the  last  of  the  intercolonial  wars, 
an  important  step  was  taken  by  the  home  government  to 
bring  about  closer  cooperation  and  greater  efficiency 
among  the  colonial  troops.  The  previous  wars  had 
abundantly  shown  the  weakness  of  the  system  of  divided 
responsibility  and  control  which  prevailed  in  the  colonies. 
Some  of  the  colonies  had  contributed  willingly  to  the 
cause  of  general  defence,  while  others  had  been  far  less 
generous.  Usually  the  loyalty  of  the  colonists  was  in 
direct  proportion  to  their  sense  of  immediate  danger. 
With  a  view  to  remedying  these  evils  the  authorities  in 
England  determined  to  place  the  colonial  troops  under 
a  commander-in-chief  appointed  in  England  and  to  send 
to  the  colonies  a  considerable  force  of  regular  troops. 

1  Palfrey,  70  et  seq. ;  Trumbull,  II,  282.  Connecticut  furnished  in  all 
1,150  men  in  this  enterprise.     Col.  Rec,  IX,  83,  128,  155. 

2  News  had  reached  the  colonies  of  the  despatch  of  a  large  French  fleet 
to  ravage  the  whole  Atlantic  coast.  This  caused  the  colonists  to  look  to 
the  defence  of  their  coast  towns.  Nothing  came  of  the  expedition,  the 
French  fleet  meeting  with  disaster  before  it  reached  the  New  England 
coast.      Palfrey,  V,  86. 


114  CONNECTICUT   AS   A   CORPORATE   COLONY. 

The  plan  while  sound  in  principle  was  unfortunately  ex- 
ecuted. The  first  commanders,  Braddock,  Shirley,  Lou- 
doun and  Abercrombie,  were  all  incompetent,  and  their 
successive  failures  did  not  increase  the  loyalty  or  effi- 
ciency of  the  colonial  troops.  But  with  the  accession  of 
Pitt  to  power  in  England,  leaders  of  real  ability  were  sent 
to  the  America,  and  the  final  subjection  of  Canada  was 
the  reward. 

The  last  and  most  important  of  the  struggles  for  col- 
onial supremacy  in  the  New  World  opened  in  1754,  two 
years  before  war  broke  out  between  England  and  France 
in  Europe.  Only  that  phase  of  the  war  which  imme- 
diately concerned  New  England,  and  particularly  Con- 
necticut, will  be  touched  upon  here. 

Of  the  three  expeditions  planned  in  1755,  one  against 
Fort  Duquesne,  one  against  Niagara,  and  one  against 
Crown  Point,  we  are  immediately  concerned  with  the  last. 
A  force  of  about  three  thousand  men,  mostly  from  Mas- 
sachusetts and  Connecticut,  under  the  command  of  Wil- 
liam Johnson  of  New  York,  were  dispatched  to  attack 
Crown  Point.  They  reached  Wood  Creek  where  they 
were  surprised  by  a  French  force  under  Dieskau.  The 
too  confident  French  General  attacked  the  English  who 
were  protected  by  rude  intrenchments.  After  an  obsti- 
nate conflict  the  French  gave  way  and  were  pursued 
through  the  woods  by  the  New  England  men.  Johnson, 
who  had  been  wounded  early  in  the  struggle,  received  full 
credit  for  this  victory,  although  the  real  leader  was  Gen- 
eral Phineas  Lyman  of  Connecticut.^ 

In  the  winter  of  1755  Shirley  met  the  colonial  gover- 
nors at  New  York,2  and  plans  were  discussed  for  the  cam- 

'  Connecticut  sent  1,500  men  in  the  expedition  and  later  1,500  rein- 
forcements. The  losses  of  Connecticut  in  the  Battle  of  Lake  George  were 
fifty-nine  killed,  wounded  and  missing.  Col.  Rec,  X,  344,  398;  Doc.  Rel. 
to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  VI,  1006. 

-  There  appeared  only  the  governors  of  Connecticut,  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania and  Maryland.      Palfrey,  V,  144. 


MILITARY   AFFAIRS.  115 

paigns  of  the  following  year.  The  plans,  however,  were 
frustrated  by  the  displacement  of  Shirley  as  commander- 
in-chief,  and  the  appointment  of  the  Earl  of  Loudoun 
with  Gen.  Abercrombie,  second  in  command.  This  action 
followed  shortly  after  the  declaration  of  war  between 
England  and  France.  Against  these  incompetent  officers 
was  matched  the  Marquis  de  Montcalm  who  succeeded 
Dieskau. 

Loudoun  remained  inactive  during  the  year  1756.  The 
following  year  the  plan  of  campaign  was  changed.  In- 
stead of  marching  against  Crown  Point  an  expedition  was 
fitted  out  for  a  descent  on  Louisburg,  but  the  undertaking 
utterly  failed,  Loudoun  returning  without  striking  a  blow.^ 
In  the  absence  of  Loudoun,  Montcalm  made  his  famous 
descent  upon  Fort  William  Henry,  resulting  in  its  cap- 
ture.2  The  great  danger  to  which  the  northern  colonies 
were  exposed  by  this  disaster  required  energetic  efforts 
on  the  part  of  the  colonists  to  defend  their  frontiers.  No 
less  than  twenty  thousand  troops  were  raised,  of  which 
Connecticut  furnished  five  thousand.'^ 

Meanwhile  a  change  in  the  ministry  of  England  had 
placed  Pitt  in  power,  and  with  this  change  a  more  ener- 
getic policy  in  prosecuting  the  war  was  inaugurated. 
Loudoun  was  displaced  by  Abercrombie,  who  proved  to 
be  no  more  competent  than  his  predecessor.  One  disas- 
trous, almost  humorous,  campaign  demonstrated  the  inca- 
pacity of  this  officer,* and  he  was  displaced  by  Sir  Jeffrey 
Amherst,  who  had  but  recently  effected  the  capture  of 
Louisburg.^ 

'  This  Connecticut  contingent  in  this  abortive  expedition  was  1,400  men. 
Col.  Rec,  X,  598. 

^  Palfrey,  V,  152. 

»Col.  Rec,  XI,  92.  See  letter  from  Pitt  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Colls.,  I,  329; 
Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  VI  I,  329. 

*  Palfrey,  V,  160. 

6  lUd.,  V,  1G3. 


116  COXXECTICUT   AS    A    CORPORATE    COLONY. 

The  campaign  of  1759  involved  three  movements,  one 
under  Gen.  Prideaux  against  Fort  Niagara,  a  second 
under  Amherst  against  Ticonderoga  and  Crown  Point, 
and  a  third  under  Wolfe,  directly  against  Quebec.  A 
Connecticut  contingent  of  five  thousand  men  was  with 
the  army  of  Amherst,^  With  little  difficulty  Ticonderoga 
and  Crown  Point  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  English.  The 
force  under  Amherst  was  relieved  of  the  necessity  of  pro- 
ceeding to  Quebec,  having  received  intelligence  that  that 
place  was  already  in  the  hands  of  Wolfe.  With  these 
events  the  conquest  of  Canada  was  assured.  In  the  spring 
of  1760  Amherst  marched  with  a  force  of  ten  thousand 
regulars  and  provincials^  against  Montreal.  With  slight 
resistance  this  last  stronghold  of  France  was  taken  and 
all  the  French  possessions  in  Canada  passed  to  the 
British  crown. 

The  conquest  of  Canada  did  not  close  the  war.  In  1761 
a  requisition  for  a  new  levy  of  troops  was  made,  which 
troops  were  used  in  repairing  the  forts,  which  had  fallen 
into  the  hands  of  the  English,  and  for  garrison  purposes.^ 
In  1762  another  request  for  troops  was  received,  and 
Connecticut  with  commendable  generosity  again  raised 
2,300  men.^  One  thousand  of  this  force,  with  1,300  from 
New  York  and  New  Jersey  under  the  command  of  Major 
General  Lyman,  took  part  in  the  expedition  against  Ha- 
vana.'^ Few  of  the  troops  that  engaged  in  this  campaign 
ever  returned  to  Connecticut.® 

1  Col.  Rec,  XI,  222. 

*  Connecticut  had  raised  five  hvmdred  men  for  this  campaign.  Col.  Rec, 
XI,  349. 

^  Ibid.,  XI,  480.  See  letter  from  Pitt,  Doc.  Rel.  to  the  Col.  Hist,  of 
N.  Y.,  VII,  452;  R.  I.  Col.  Rec,  VII,  262.        Connecticut  raised  2,300  men. 

*  Col.  Rec,  XI,  614.  A  bounty  of  live  pounds  was  also  offered  to  those 
who  would  join  the  regular  army.      Ibid.,  XI,  622. 

5  War  had  again  broken  out  between  England  and  Spain  in  1762. 
«  Trumbull,  II,  449. 


MILITAKY   AFFAIRS.  117 

Early  in  1764  a  request  was  received  for  troops  to  join 
the  forces  of  Amherst  which  were  operating  against  the 
Indians  on  the  western  frontier.^  At  first  the  General 
Court  did  not  see  fit  to  comply  with  the  request  as  the 
colony  ''was  not  exposed  by  its  situation"  to  danger. 
Finally,  however,  it  was  agreed  to  raise  two  hundred  and 
sixty-five  men,  who,  probably,  never  left  the  colony,  as  the 
struggle  had  been  brought  to  a  close. 

>  See  letter  from  Halifax,  New  Hampshire  Prov.  Papers,  VII,  28. 


VITA. 

The  author  of  this  monograph  was  graduated  from  Public 
School  55,  New  York  City,  in  1894 ;  attended  the  College  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  1894-1899,  graduating  with  the  degree  of 
B.S. ;  pursued  post-graduate  courses  in  the  faculty  of  Political 
Science,  Columbia  University,  receiving  the  degree  of  A.M.  in 
1903,  and  Ph.D.  in  1906 ;  taught  in  the  New  York  public  schools 
1899-1902 ;  appointed  tutor  in  the  department  of  history,  Col- 
lege of  the  City  of  New  York,  1902-1906 ;  instructor,  1906-. 


119 


SI 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


TW 
NO 


Form  L' 


DC  SOUTHER".  RtGI'J'.AL  JBRARY  FAC.J'V 


A    001  338  076    i 


1      1  «'I  i       » 

t  i  M 
1     1 

1 
1 

:    : 

if!       VS 

I 

■ 

I 

< 

Hu  !■   in 

fir 

m 
111 

■ 

i 

ffl 


